The Sanford Florida incident....

[BaiHu]

I've been going over this incident with some friends who are on both sides of the political aisle and I'm trying to stay neutral and gather intel before I fry this guy, but I figured this was the best place to flesh out some good perspectives.

Have at it:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2012%2F03%2F17% 2Fopinion%2Fblow-the-curious-case-of-trayvon-martin.html&ei=okZpT7KGKaTa0QGz4pDqDA&usg=AFQjCNEF9i552FrteVN5leacYb_AYdW-Bw&sig2=_bX_G6h2FDSKKkMRa0QXtg

http://www.businessinsider.com/a-black-militia-group-says-it-plans-to-arrest-the-neighborhood-watchman-who-shot-trayvon-martin-2012-3

[JodyH]

Avoidable stupidity.
May or may not be criminally stupid.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

[TCinVA]

This is the fear that seizes me whenever my boys are out in the world: that a man with a gun and an itchy finger will find them “suspicious.”


I believe that if we examine statistics we'll find that the primary danger to his boys isn't really the people who find them "suspicious".

...but that wouldn't make for a very good article, I suppose.

[Sparks2112]

Easilly avoidable and very sad.

[F-Trooper05]

If you ignore the 911 dispatcher when she tells you not to pursue someone, it's hard for me not to think you were looking for a fight.

[Shellback]

Members of The New Black Liberation Militia plan to take 28-year-old George Zimmerman to federal authorities this week since local police haven't acted, said Najee Muhammad, a leader of the militia group.

"We'll find him. We've got his mug shot and everything," Muhammad said.
That should prove to be interesting.

This story's on every frickin' TV news channel and AM talk radio and in my opinion there's a lot more important things going on in our country right now.

[Joe in PNG]

It does bring home at least one lessons about self defence:

-If you're not a police officer, don't try to act as a police officer! Had Zinnerman just stayed in his car, this likely would not have turned into this kind of a mess.

[rob_s]

This story's on every frickin' TV news channel and AM talk radio and in my opinion there's a lot more important things going on in our country right now.

Bingo. Anything to avoid the issues.

[Tamara]

The dude was well-known to the local constabulary as a holster-sniffin' Strange Ranger.

This is why I hate the "Can I shoot him now? How 'bout now? Now?" nonsense that occurs in the "Tactics" section of firearms forums, as shooters build elaborate scenarios in hopes of being given the green light to shoot the imagined perp. Left unchecked, it leads to mall ninjary such as this guy's.

Was he legal? Based on everything released thus far, it sure looks that way. But nobody had to die that night.

[Jay Cunningham]

Maybe it would have eaten at his soul if he'd done nothing.

;-)

[bdcheung]

Was he legal? Based on everything released thus far, it sure looks that way. But nobody had to die that night.

I'm not even sure about that.

He identified the individual as suspicious.

He called the police.

The 911 operator told him not to pursue.

He pursued.

An altercation occurred which led to him discharging his firearm.

Would a reasonable person have followed this same sequence? Did Zimmerman's decision to pursue in light of the 911 operator's comments move him into the realm of "instigating conflict" thereby negating any possible self defense claim?

I think Zimmerman messed up the moment he ignored what the police told him to do. I think that's where he lost the right to claim self defense.

[Tamara]

Would a reasonable person have followed this same sequence? Did Zimmerman's decision to pursue in light of the 911 operator's comments move him into the realm of "instigating conflict" thereby negating any possible self defense claim?

I think Zimmerman messed up the moment he ignored what the police told him to do. I think that's where he lost the right to claim self defense.
IANAL, nor do I play one on the internets, and I didn't even sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night, so weigh my opinion in light of that: There is no Florida statute of which I am aware that is violated simply by following somebody around, not is there any legal requirement to follow the orders of the 911 operator.

[JV_]

This is why I hate the "Can I shoot him now? How 'bout now? Now?" nonsense that occurs in the "Tactics" section of firearms forumsI agree.

[cutter]

How many of us would have drawn on or shot Zimmerman, if we were the one walking back from 7-11?

Asumming what is out in public is true,


Minding your own business,
Being followed by a strange truck
Subject gets out of truck and confronts you
Subject is not a police officer
Subject attempts to detain you (Making a assumption on this)
Subject displays a gun (or you fear he has one)



Based on this I sure would have shot him.

[TCinVA]

Maybe it would have eaten at his soul if he'd done nothing.

;-)

Bazinga.

In all seriousness, though:

This is a good example of why people who have actual experience dealing with the use of force and the aftermath of it are always advising caution. It turns out that a verbal confrontation can quickly turn into physical violence which can quickly turn into lethal levels of violence, and in the aftermath police, prosecutors, and jurors are going to be asking whether or not somebody deserved to get plugged over Gatorade or Skittles. Sure, there are lots of people on the internet who will talk all sorts of smack about your supposed obligation to wade into any situation that crops up like the Lone Friggin' Ranger and see that "justice" is done, but you know what?

When you're standing there with the ringing in your ears and the air filled with that unmistakable aroma of burned gunpowder and blood, you suddenly realize that it's just you. You are going to have to answer for what happened all by your little lonesome. The peanut gallery of dudes on the internet who think that they have the legal right to kill people for simple trespass and pistol whip those who cut in line or cut them off in traffic won't be answering the uncomfortable questions from the cops. You will. They won't be paying your lawyer's bills, either. You will. It won't be their house and retirement at stake in a potential civil trial. It will be yours.

Whenever that internet bravado bullhonkey gets put into practical application it turns into an epic goat rodeo for the person stupid enough to have put it into play.

Might this be the reason that the people who are actually familiar what happens in real interrogation rooms and court rooms urge caution while those whose knowledge of the legal system comes entirely from internet forums and that "don't talk to the police!" youtube video think you can kill someone for looking at you funny?

Things that make you go "Hmmm..."

In life you may get hit by a truck. It's stupid, though, to put yourself into the path of an oncoming truck because you believe the people who are warning you about the danger are somehow cowards.

[bdcheung]

IANAL, nor do I play one on the internets, and I didn't even sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night, so weigh my opinion in light of that: There is no Florida statute of which I am aware that is violated simply by following somebody around, not is there any legal requirement to follow the orders of the 911 operator.

I didn't intend to imply that he broke any laws by doing what he did.

To clarify: In my opinion, he severely degraded the reasonableness of his self-defense claim by:

Following an individual he reported to the police as being suspicious
Not heeding police advice to stop following the individual
Confronting an individual he reported to the police as being suspicious


Chapter 776 of Florida's statutes spell out the Justification for the Use of Force. I'm going to quote 776.041, "Use of force by an aggressor" which stipulates conditions in which use of force in self defense is not justifiable (emphasis mine):


776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

In reading what facts are available, it appears to me that Zimmerman provoked Martin to use force against him. Furthermore, it does not appear that Martin used "force...so great that [Zimmerman] reasonably believes he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm...[and Zimmerman] has exhausted every reasonable means to escape..." NOR does it appear that Zimmerman "in good faith...withdraws from physical contact with the assailant."

Martin was unarmed, that much we know. Zimmerman did not run away, that much we know. In a normal self defense situation, where Zimmerman had not instigated the conflict by pursuing an individual he identified as being suspicious, the "stand your ground" rule is in effect. But in this scenario, I believe (and IANAL) he lost that right and had full duty to retreat. Which he did not.

End transmission.

[secondstoryguy]

We will likely never know exactly what happened in the exchange between the two. What I do know is Zimmerman is gonna be in and out of court, both criminally and civil, for a long time and will probably be in a soup line at the end of it all. The funniest thing about the whole situation is several of the news agencies called Zimmerman a "white hispanic", which I suppose is them trying to make it more of a race thing by throwing in a "white".

[bdcheung]

The funniest thing about the whole situation is several of the news agencies called Zimmerman a "white hispanic", which I suppose is them trying to make it more of a race thing by throwing in a "white".

Sidebar: "White hispanic" is also used by the U.S. Census Bureau. "White" is a race, "hispanic" is an ethnicity. So one can be both white and hispanic.

http://www.census.gov/population/race/

[TCinVA]

We will likely never know exactly what happened in the exchange between the two. What I do know is Zimmerman is gonna be in and out of court, both criminally and civil, for a long time and will probably be in a soup line at the end of it all. The funniest thing about the whole situation is several of the news agencies called Zimmerman a "white hispanic", which I suppose is them trying to make it more of a race thing by throwing in a "white".

The media is never lacking in the impulse to turn a use of force into a racial issue...just like the originally linked article attempts to do. Granted we hear all the time how the dead dude was a great guy putting his life together and how he was a gentle soul that was always happy and smiling (a real description of an attempted armed robber in Virginia some time ago), but in this case it looks as if the dead teenager genuinely wasn't doing anything.

A reluctance to involve oneself in stuff that doesn't absolutely require their involvement...and maybe a friggin' flashlight to go along with that heater...might be a wise strategy for someone who doesn't want to become the face of racism in the United States.

[Sparks2112]

Is it sad I made assumptions about zimmerman's personality and mindset based off of the information he used a keltec 9mm?

[bdcheung]

Is it sad I made assumptions about zimmerman's personality and mindset based off of the information he used a keltec 9mm?

Zimmerman managed to kill Martin with one shot.

There's only one handgun that can do that.

The Judge.

[rsa-otc]

My take is as follows:

- Zimmerman was OK to continue follow (not chase) someone who is "Suspicious".
- Was wrong to get out of the SUV to confront the teen. What was the teen doing other than walking down the road that would make Zimmerman think that he had to confront the teen right away.
- Once he confronted the teen, where was the disparity of force that would justify the use of Lethal Force. Going only by the photo's shown so far the was no size or age disparity. No mention of any special training that would make the teen especially dangerous like being a trained boxer or Black Belt (and under the "Reasonable Man Doctrine" how would Zimmerman know of such training other than he was getting his backside handed to him). No reported weapons of any sort.
- I have not taken the time yet to listen to any recordings, but if the reports are true that the teen could be heard begging for his life between shot one and shot two, even if he could claim shot one was justified, shot two wasn't; Zimmerman is done.

It's my belief Zimmerman will eventually be charged with Homicide. Starting with leaving the truck to confront the teen everything Zimmerman was reported doing seems just plain wrong.

[secondstoryguy]

Sidebar: "White hispanic" is also used by the U.S. Census Bureau. "White" is a race, "hispanic" is an ethnicity. So one can be both white and hispanic.

http://www.census.gov/population/race/

I'm confused:) So I'm an American with Scots-Irish and German blood, WTF am I? Just white I guess.

[Sparks2112]

There was only one shot afaik.


My take is as follows:

- Zimmerman was OK to continue follow (not chase) someone who is "Suspicious".
- Was wrong to get out of the SUV to confront the teen. What was the teen doing other than walking down the road that would make Zimmerman think that he had to confront the teen right away.
- Once he confronted the teen, where was the disparity of force that would justify the use of Lethal Force. Going only by the photo's shown so far the was no size or age disparity. No mention of any special training that would make the teen especially dangerous like being a trained boxer or Black Belt (and under the "Reasonable Man Doctrine" how would Zimmerman know of such training other than he was getting his backside handed to him). No reported weapons of any sort.
- I have not taken the time yet to listen to any recordings, but if the reports are true that the teen could be heard begging for his life between shot one and shot two, even if he could claim shot one was justified, shot two wasn't; Zimmerman is done.

It's my belief Zimmerman will eventually be charged with Homicide. Starting with leaving the truck to confront the teen everything Zimmerman was reported doing is just plain seems wrong.

[TCinVA]

I'm reluctant to make a lot of judgments about Zimmerman because what I'm being fed...and that's exactly what news reports are, selectively fed information...comes from sources that routinely get very important things wrong. He could be getting a bum wrap from a press that loves nothing better than to find racism and turn it into headlines. How many young black men were killed by other young black men on the day that this incident happened? ...but you don't hear about them.

Much of the news we hear is being heard precisely because it fits someone's agenda. We've seen in countless reports on self defense just how unbelievably bad the reporting can be and how important facts that completely change the situation get ignored or glossed over.

As an example, a reporter for one of the more disreputable rags in Virginia wrote a story about that nice smiling happy dude I mentioned earlier. The story was about how he made everyone happy and how he was always such a good boy and how nobody could imagine why anyone would want to kill him. The kid was practically a candidate for sainthood! In the last sentence of the story it mentioned that the kid died in the parking lot of a bank and that the police found a .22 caliber rifle on the scene with his fingerprints on it. Translation: Mr. Happy Sainthood there tried to hold somebody up with a rifle. The person pulled a gun and shot him in a legitimate act of self defense.

...but you'd never have figured that out by reading the other 99% of the story. It was a deliberate attempt at propaganda by a paper that hated the idea of concealed carry in the Commonwealth.

So I read the stuff about Zimmerman with a bucket full of salt handy. It sure sounds like he was a yahoo who acted a darn fool and ended up killing an innocent kid. And hell...it may even be true. If it is true, then he played stupid games and he's about to find out how much being squeezed by the wheels of justice hurts. Even if it's not true he's still in for something that's somewhat less pleasant than a rectal exam from a cactus from the sound of things.

[JeffJ]

With the caveat that I obviously don't know what happened here:

If you confront someone physically - grab, hit, whatever - and then get your ass kicked because you bit off more than you can chew and shoot them - Is that self defense?

It sure seems like Zimmerman instigated the whole thing, not on his property (I don't know the legal standing of neighborhood watch) - Not in any kind of uniform or with any kind of authority tried to detain someone who was guilty of WWB (Walking while black) and the kid decided not to let the crazy man tell him what to do.

Maybe more info will come out, and hopefully I'm dead wrong. But initial reports sure look bad for this guy.

[bdcheung]

If you confront someone physically - grab, hit, whatever - and then get your ass kicked because you bit off more than you can chew and shoot them - Is that self defense?

In my opinion, and by my interpretation of Florida statute:

no.

In the situation you proposed, Zimmerman would have had every obligation to disengage and flee.

[rsa-otc]

There was only one shot afaik.

Going by this quote:
"A few minutes later, Zimmerman chased Martin and shot him twice, killing him. Zimmerman does not dispute any of these facts, according to reports, but he says he acted in self-defense. "

"According to the Daily Mail, Martin's parents said after hearing an audio they are more convinced then ever that a crime took place.

"You hear a shot, a clear shot, then you hear a 17-year-old boy begging for his life," said Natalie Jackson, the family attorney. "Then you hear a second shot."

http://www.businessinsider.com/an-unarmed-black-teen-was-shot-and-killed-by-a-neighborhood-watchman-and-no-one-has-been-charged-2012-3

[JeffJ]

In my opinion, and by my interpretation of Florida statute:

no.

In the situation you proposed, Zimmerman would have had every obligation to disengage and flee.

I agree obviously, that's why I posed the question that way. However, while I think that looking at the situation and examine hypotheticals is a good mental exercise for anyone that carrier a weapon (or doesn't for that matter) -- I want to throw out there, one more time...

TC is absolutely right - we don't know what happened. News reports, especially early ones, are a horrible source for facts and we should all caution ourselves to not form strong opions based on incomplete informaion.

[rsa-otc]

I'm reluctant to make a lot of judgments about Zimmerman because what I'm being fed...and that's exactly what news reports are, selectively fed information...comes from sources that routinely get very important things wrong."

That's why I used the wording "reported".

[JHC]

There is no substitute for sound judgement. This was sorely lacking.

[JHC]

Bazinga.

In all seriousness, though:

This is a good example of why people who have actual experience dealing with the use of force and the aftermath of it are always advising caution. It turns out that a verbal confrontation can quickly turn into physical violence which can quickly turn into lethal levels of violence, and in the aftermath police, prosecutors, and jurors are going to be asking whether or not somebody deserved to get plugged over Gatorade or Skittles. Sure, there are lots of people on the internet who will talk all sorts of smack about your supposed obligation to wade into any situation that crops up like the Lone Friggin' Ranger and see that "justice" is done, but you know what?

When you're standing there with the ringing in your ears and the air filled with that unmistakable aroma of burned gunpowder and blood, you suddenly realize that it's just you. You are going to have to answer for what happened all by your little lonesome. The peanut gallery of dudes on the internet who think that they have the legal right to kill people for simple trespass and pistol whip those who cut in line or cut them off in traffic won't be answering the uncomfortable questions from the cops. You will. They won't be paying your lawyer's bills, either. You will. It won't be their house and retirement at stake in a potential civil trial. It will be yours.

Whenever that internet bravado bullhonkey gets put into practical application it turns into an epic goat rodeo for the person stupid enough to have put it into play.

Might this be the reason that the people who are actually familiar what happens in real interrogation rooms and court rooms urge caution while those whose knowledge of the legal system comes entirely from internet forums and that "don't talk to the police!" youtube video think you can kill someone for looking at you funny?

Things that make you go "Hmmm..."

In life you may get hit by a truck. It's stupid, though, to put yourself into the path of an oncoming truck because you believe the people who are warning you about the danger are somehow cowards.

I haven't seen enough to believe either side of the story. Not the shooters for sure. By all accounts nothing criminal much less violent was happpening so he wasn't really intervening in anything. It sounds like something else very weird was going on - referring to Tamara's suspicions.

[rsa-otc]

I haven't seen enough to believe either side of the story. Not the shooters for sure. By all accounts nothing criminal much less violent was happpening so he wasn't really intervening in anything.

At this point in my life I would not intervene in anything that didn't involve an active event of violence upon another person. Even then I would do so only after careful consideration. Evan Marshal reports a time where he and his partner intervened in a rape in progress. He butt stroked the guy off the victim with his shotgun. Several days later the rape victim entered an excessive force complaint against him (Marshal). This is not the first time I've heard of this kind of thing. You never know what is going on and whats going to happen.

[peterb]

If you confront someone physically - grab, hit, whatever - and then get your ass kicked because you bit off more than you can chew and shoot them - Is that self defense?

I suspect that it varies with the situation. As I recall, in one of Ayoob's books he mentions a case of an off-duty cop starting an argument with three former "customers", getting stomped, shooting one of them, and having the claim of self-defense be rejected.

His take on the basic standard for self-defense is: "You may legally use deadly force only when there is an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent. (italics mine)

It's my understanding that if you start a confrontation in public that you could easily avoid, your right to claim self-defense pretty much goes out the window. "Stand your ground" laws do not exempt you from having to act like a reasonable person.

[LittleLebowski]

Disgusting and heartbreaking. Both on the child being killed and the outcry by the NAACP over this but only because a black person was killed by a non black person.

[SouthNarc]

IANAL....

You really should write that out......

[BaiHu]

You really should write that out......
Ya know, I thank you for pointing that out SN, b/c I sounded that out the first time and shook my head and then figured out what it meant and just kept reading-I didn't feel like I knew Tamara well enough to bust on her 'linguistic latitude' :p

[NickA]

There is no substitute for sound judgement. This was sorely lacking.

To paraphrase Farnam, "Use superior judgment to avoid using your superior gunfighting skills. "
This whole deal just seems so easily avoidable.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[LOKNLOD]

You really should write that out......

Worst Apple product ever.

[JeffJ]

Worst Apple product ever.

Judge not, lest you... Oh nevermind, you're right

[BaiHu]

Worst Apple product ever.

Awesome!



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk

[Mitchell, Esq.]

The dude was well-known to the local constabulary as a holster-sniffin' Strange Ranger.

This is why I hate the "Can I shoot him now? How 'bout now? Now?" nonsense that occurs in the "Tactics" section of firearms forums, as shooters build elaborate scenarios in hopes of being given the green light to shoot the imagined perp. Left unchecked, it leads to mall ninjary such as this guy's.

Was he legal? Based on everything released thus far, it sure looks that way. But nobody had to die that night.

But...can I shoot him now?
I think that has a lot to do with how people understand consepts.

It's easier to understand a consept like "reasonable" by distilling it into a tangible situation than it is to discuss the consept in the abstract. Further, many people don't have the verbal tools to put the questions they have into a well thought out question that actually asks what they want to know.

It's on the tip of the tounge...they just can't articulate it.

That's not to say their aren't kill-crazy people looking for an excuse to get their name into an Ayoob article regarding a justifiable shooting...but I don't think people are looking to kill people like it's free.

I believe it's people not knowing what they don't know, and not wanting to find out if they should inquire further.

[peterb]

From a Florida "gun lawyer's" blog:
------------------------------
Next – let's talk about the “Stand your Ground Law”.

Contrary to all the anti-gun hype – this law does not protect George Zimmerman if he was the aggressor. In fact – if he misused his firearm – the law is quite clear that he is looking at a MINIMUM mandatory prison sentence of 25 years – and as much as LIFE imprisonment! That’s mandatory, folks – and every day of the 25 years must be served if convicted! No early release. No parole. Sound like the “easy gun laws” everyone is complaining about on TV? Twenty five years to life??? No way!

The facts are that the "Stand Your Ground" law simply says that if you have an objectively reasonable belief that you are in imminent danger (ie: “immediate”) of death or a substantially serious injury (ie: “great bodily harm”) , or there is a reasonably objective belief that a forcible felony is taking place, AND it appears reasonable to use deadly force in the situation – then deadly force may be used, and you need not retreat before using deadly force. But . . . if you make an unreasonable decision or unreasonable mistake in judgment – then -- go directly to jail – for a long, long time!

The only thing the “Stand Your Ground Law” really changed from earlier law was to correct a serious problem in the self defense law – because forcing someone to retreat in the myriad of impossible situations that arose in self defense – and especially in trying to stop a forcible felony – made it very difficult to legally defend yourself no matter how justified the lethal force situation was. Quite frankly, Florida law is a lot tougher on penalties than most other states -- and is very similar to the self defense laws of other states -- except that the "retreat rule" has been eliminated. (which -- is also the trend, and has been passed in many other states besides Florida).

http://orlandocriminallawyer.blogspot.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman.html

[Tamara]

Worst Apple product ever.

For the record, Diet Mountain Dew in the sinuses burns like you would not believe! :D

[Tamara]

It's easier to understand a consept like "reasonable" by distilling it into a tangible situation than it is to discuss the consept in the abstract. Further, many people don't have the verbal tools to put the questions they have into a well thought out question that actually asks what they want to know.

It's on the tip of the tounge...they just can't articulate it.

...

I believe it's people not knowing what they don't know, and not wanting to find out if they should inquire further.

Touche.

I seem to remember talking with Kathy Jackson about something similar a couple years ago...

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Touche.

I seem to remember talking with Kathy Jackson about something similar a couple years ago...

Ah. Ms. "Cornered Cat"...

Sigh.

This is a piece of my post on getoffthex:

...maybe the culture of "encouraged ignorance" the firearm community seems to have is something that needs to be addressed.

We live in a society in which we have laws that control the aftermath of a use of force situation.

Regardless if they are good or bad laws, they exist.

Yet people seem to act as if they don't want to know anything about them.

Why?

It seems to me that people purposly do not want to address what happens after the shots are fired with anything remotely like the energy and rigor that they apply to skill at arms.

Faster draw times, faster reloads, faster splits, target transitions...

Yet if you bring up faster decission making, you are looked at like you have a ---- coming out of your head.

Why?

[DocGKR]

So if I understand this all correctly, a teenager was walking down the street, not engaged in felonious behavior and was subsequently shot and killed because someone felt he looked suspicious...if that basic summary of salient facts is accurate, then there appears to be no justification for this tragic incident to have occurred the way it seems to have happened.

[bdcheung]

So if I understand this all correctly, a teenager was walking down the street, not engaged in felonious behavior and was subsequently shot and killed because someone felt he looked suspicious...if that basic summary of salient facts is accurate, then there appears to be no justification for this tragic incident to have occurred the way it seems to have happened.

That summary of events is incomplete.

1) Martin was walking down the street.
2) Zimmerman thought he looked suspicious.
3) Zimmerman called 911.
4) 911 told Zimmerman not to follow Martin.
5) Zimmerman continues following Martin.
6) Martin asks Zimmerman not to follow him.
7) ???
8) Zimmerman shoots Martin in the chest.

[Ed L]

In looking over a variety of questionable civilian shootings, a common element I've noticed is that the shooter left the safety of his house or car to confront someone who was not a direct threat to the shooter or to anyone else's safety. Add to this pulling over in your car to have a 'discussion ' with someone who you had a vehicular misunderstanding with (read road rage).

[Mitchell, Esq.]

In looking over a variety of questionable civilian shootings, a common element I've noticed is that the shooter left the safety of his house or car to confront someone who was not a direct threat to the shooter or to anyone else's safety. Add to this pulling over in your car to have a 'discussion ' with someone who you had a vehicular misunderstanding with (read road rage).

Yeah...

That's what makes it "questionable".

Almost every time I hear "The guy did nothing wrong!!" that part is overlooked.

[Savage Hands]

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation#ixzz1pmdf8vp5

"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.

John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.

"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."

[JodyH]

Zimmerman went looking for "something" (I don't think he went looking for a black kid to kill, I think he went looking for someone to "respect his authoritah").
Martin was a kid minding his own business and "walking while black", and probably (rightfully) took offense at the wanna-be mall ninja.
My guess is Zimmerman demanded respect and got a punch to the nose instead.
Once Zimmerman started losing the fight he went lethal.

That's just a wild-assed-guess as to the events that unfolded, but I bet you I'm pretty dang close.
Like I said in my first post:
Avoidable stupidity.
May or may not be criminally stupid.

[dookie1481]

Zimmerman went looking for "something" (I don't think he went looking for a black kid to kill, I think he went looking for someone to "respect his authoritah").
Martin was a kid minding his own business and "walking while black", and probably (rightfully) took offense at the wanna-be mall ninja.
My guess is Zimmerman demanded respect and got a punch to the nose instead.
Once Zimmerman started losing the fight he went lethal.

That's just a wild-assed-guess as to the events that unfolded, but I bet you I'm pretty dang close.
Like I said in my first post:
Avoidable stupidity.
May or may not be criminally stupid.

Yep, that's exactly what my ASSumption is, based on the facts that I have read.

[F-Trooper05]

Zimmerman went looking for "something" (I don't think he went looking for a black kid to kill, I think he went looking for someone to "respect his authoritah").
Martin was a kid minding his own business and "walking while black", and probably (rightfully) took offense at the wanna-be mall ninja.
My guess is Zimmerman demanded respect and got a punch to the nose instead.
Once Zimmerman started losing the fight he went lethal.

That's just a wild-assed-guess as to the events that unfolded, but I bet you I'm pretty dang close.
Like I said in my first post:
Avoidable stupidity.
May or may not be criminally stupid.

My thoughts exactly. When I was 17 I wouldn't have hesitated to deck a fat little neighborhood "watchman" for getting up in my face for no reason.

[rsa-otc]

Last night at dinner my wife and I were talking about this case. She had just asked when this shooting had happened when it came on the TV news (talk about timing). The network news story laid the blame on the Stand You Ground law, claiming that it was at fault leading to an increased number of "Justifiable" Homicides. Kind of leading the viewer to believe that there were no guidelines in place and that it was leading to people just shooting the place up and later claiming protection under this outlandish law. The network was ABC by the way. As I told my wife we had discussed the limitations of the law and that there were severely harsh penalties should you fall outside it's protections.

This morning one of the leading news stories on the Comcast home page was this one. The attached link is actually more fair minded then the network news. Basically Zimmerman is claiming that after loosing sight of Martin and in the process of returning to his truck, Martin came up and attacked him from behind.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20120322/US.Neighborhood.Watch.Stand.Your.Ground/

[rsa-otc]

Couple of more links, one to an ABC news report.

http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-case-lead-investigator-asked-step-down-231154652--abc-news.html

http://news.yahoo.com/florida-police-chief-under-fire-case-slain-teen-003148576.html

[BaiHu]

Thanks for the update!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk

[peterb]

Interesting, if true.....
---------------------
Holding a gun may make you think others are too

...In the study which was carried out well before the shooting, undergraduates at Notre Dame and Purdue glimpsed scenes of people holding objects and had to decide quickly whether the object was a gun. The results showed they were biased toward thinking so if they themselves were holding a toy gun, rather than a plastic ball. Just having a gun nearby didn't make a difference, researchers found.

Why is that? Brockmole said people are primed to act in the world rather than just passively see it. So their minds have to contain information both about what they see and what they might do in response. Evidently, each kind of information can influence the other, he said.

He said the work, which is set to be published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, is not intended to support gun control. But he said it suggests that people should know that when they hold a gun "that might change how you're going to interpret what's around you."

Brockmole's findings make sense, said Evan Risko, who studies perception and attention at Arizona State University. "Our perception is influenced by a number of different factors, and that can have important consequences," he said.

Dennis Proffitt, who studies visual perception at the University of Virginia, said there are many reasons why one person might think another is armed, such as if he is worried about his own safety or if he thinks the other person is a robber. The effect of holding a gun oneself "could be part of the story" in Florida, he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/holding-gun-may-think-others-too-221346341.html

[BaiHu]

Interesting, if true.....
---------------------
Holding a gun may make you think others are too...

Great link-thanks for the find!

[Shellback]

This story has a police description of how they found Zimmerman, bleeding from head and face with grass on his back: http://lezgetreal.com/2012/03/possible-witnesses-emerge-in-the-trayvon-martin-death/comment-page-1/

This news report details that 6 witness provided statements that all corroborated Zimmerman's account: http://www.dominionofnewyork.com/2012/03/16/police-witness-spar-over-trayvon-martin-investigation/#.T2rC7BB5mSM

At least one of the witnesses has changed their story. How many news agencies have copies of the witness statements but have published them unedited? My guess is most have them but none are printing them, it doesn't fit their agenda.

The whole thing's rather entertaining to see how upset people are getting. Personally I'm more worried about our economy, oil prices and what's happening in the M.E. and think this serves as a good racially fueled incident to get the downtrodden to vote for O in the upcoming election. A little bit of race based hate solidarity goes a long way.

[peterb]

At this stage it's unlikely that we'll ever know what happened. It's too big, too public. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable even in simple cases, and this kind of pressure just makes it worse.

Details suggesting that Zimmerman was on his back getting pounded do not, by themselves, justify the use of lethal force in self-defense. What were the events leading up to that point?

[Savage Hands]

I hate to say it but some of the articles posted here are some of the more biased reports with "witnesses" adding their opinion to what they "heard". Only one witness so far saw them engaged physically and actually saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman while Zimmerman was yelling for help which I posted above.

[BaiHu]

The whole thing's rather entertaining to see how upset people are getting. Personally I'm more worried about our economy, oil prices and what's happening in the M.E. and think this serves as a good racially fueled incident to get the downtrodden to vote for O in the upcoming election. A little bit of race based hate solidarity goes a long way.

I agree that there are more important individual things, but you just pointed out why this is an important political event with your last sentence. If this incident does not go well, it may not go well for our country as well.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk

[Shellback]

I agree that there are more important individual things, but you just pointed out why this is an important political event with your last sentence. If this incident does not go well, it may not go well for our country as well.

Very true. With the amount of protesting I saw on TV yesterday there's the potential for another Rodney King type of incident. That'd be really interesting.

[BaiHu]

Very true. With the amount of protesting I saw on TV yesterday there's the potential for another Rodney King type of incident. That'd be really interesting.

Ugh! Don't say that...how do we stop that again? Say beetlejuice 3 times real fast? :confused:

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk

[JRL]

In another Florida case...

"A Miami judge dismissed a second-degree murder case, citing the Stand Your Ground law and ruling that 25-year-old Greyston Garcia's testimony about self-defense was credible. The Miami Herald reported that Garcia was charged after chasing down and stabbing to death a 26-year-old suspected burglar in January."

...

[Tamara]

"A Miami judge dismissed a second-degree murder case, citing the Stand Your Ground law and ruling that 25-year-old Greyston Garcia's testimony about self-defense was credible. The Miami Herald reported that Garcia was charged after chasing down and stabbing to death a 26-year-old suspected burglar in January."
What media bias? :confused:

[bdcheung]

In another Florida case...

"A Miami judge dismissed a second-degree murder case, citing the Stand Your Ground law and ruling that 25-year-old Greyston Garcia's testimony about self-defense was credible. The Miami Herald reported that Garcia was charged after chasing down and stabbing to death a 26-year-old suspected burglar in January."

...

Idiot judge makes idiot judgment.

Did the state appeal the dismissal?

[Savage Hands]

Idiot judge makes idiot judgment.

Did the state appeal the dismissal?

You took that report as fact?

[bdcheung]

You took that report as fact?

The Judge took the report as fact. I took the judgment as fact. I'm not the one who made the judgment.

[Tamara]

The Judge took the report as fact. I took the judgment as fact. I'm not the one who made the judgment.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that other evidence besides a clipping from the Miami Herald was entered by the defense. ;)

[Savage Hands]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that other evidence besides a clipping from the Miami Herald was entered by the defense. ;)

:D

[Madnik]

1) Martin was walking down the street.
2) Zimmerman thought he looked suspicious.
3) Zimmerman called 911.
4) 911 told Zimmerman not to follow Martin.
5) Zimmerman continues following Martin.
6) Martin asks Zimmerman not to follow him.
7) ???
8) Zimmerman shoots Martin in the chest.

There appear to be 3 possibilities re #7:

1. Zimmerman confronted Martin, Zimmerman initiated physical contact, a struggle ensued, and Zimmerman shot Martin.
2. Zimmerman confronted Martin, Martin initiated physical contact, a struggle ensued, and Zimmerman shot Martin.
3. Zimmerman confronted, Martin, turned to return to his vehicle, Martin attacked him, a struggle ensued, and Zimmerman shot Martin.

Most of the reporting seems to advance either #1 or #2.
I read a sole report that stated that Zimmerman made statements advancing #3.

The usual caveats concerning accuracy of reporting, waiting for more/accurate/vetted information, etc apply.

If either #1 or #2 are accurate, then Zimmerman should be held accountable. Yes, #2. Martin had the same rights to stand his ground and to self defense as Zimmerman, after all. Bearing in mind that he was the doing nothing wrong, was minding his own business, etc.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

3. Zimmerman confronted, Martin, turned to return to his vehicle, Martin attacked him, a struggle ensued, and Zimmerman shot Martin.

Most of the reporting seems to advance either #1 or #2.
I read a sole report that stated that Zimmerman made statements advancing #3.



Zimmerman still has an obligation to avoid acting in a way that makes to the use of force more likely.

Confronting people walking through your neighborhood because they look suspicious when the nice 911 voice asked you not to isn't a good way to act in a manner which minimizes the need to use force.

[JodyH]

There appear to be 3 possibilities re #7:

1. Zimmerman confronted Martin, Zimmerman initiated physical contact, a struggle ensued, and Zimmerman shot Martin.
2. Zimmerman confronted Martin, Martin initiated physical contact, a struggle ensued, and Zimmerman shot Martin.
3. Zimmerman confronted, Martin, turned to return to his vehicle, Martin attacked him, a struggle ensued, and Zimmerman shot Martin.
There are many more possibilities than just 3, for example:
Zimmerman lost sight of Martin, when he turned to return to his vehicle Martin ambushed him...

[Sparks2112]

The only fact I'm certain of is that Zimmerman had NO reason to exit his vehicle. Whether he was right or wrong at the instant he pulled the trigger doesn't matter too much. 50 911 calls in the last year, the majority being false alarms. Mall ninja type people earn mall ninja type prizes is my take away.

[Shellback]

There are many more possibilities than just 3, for example:
Zimmerman lost sight of Martin, when he turned to return to his vehicle Martin ambushed him...

What? How could that possibly happen? That absolutely doesn't jive with what the media's been telling me. :rolleyes:

[JodyH]

The only fact I'm certain of is that Zimmerman had NO reason to exit his vehicle.
He had called 911 about a suspicious person.
That person went out of his sight.
He wanted to give the responding officers as much information as possible.
He exited his vehicle to follow and observe the suspicious person from a safe distance.
^^^All of those are reasonable actions^^^

What actually happened and his state of mine, we'll probably never know.
But I do know that I absolutely do NOT trust any media source to get the facts right.

[JodyH]

As to 50 911 calls in a year.
I had a murder victim turn up about 100 yards from my back door in a pasture.
The police told me to call them anytime I saw a vehicle or people in the pasture, and to use 911 if I wanted to.
In between then and now I've probably called the non-emergency line 20 times for suspicious vehicles back there.

As to investigating suspicious people.
I've had my barking dogs alert me to people in the pasture.
I'll often walk around the house to the alley or into the back yard to investigate.
Sometimes it's a neighbor, sometimes it's people who have no business back there and they get the police called on them.

Suppose I walk around the side of the house and see someone I don't recognize walking towards the pasture one evening.
I follow them to see if maybe it's my neighbor.
When I round the corner into the alley I get jumped by a youth of a different ethnicity and end up shooting them.
How do you think the media will present my story?

Zimmerman appears to be a douche based on the VERY limited information we have.
But I'm not going to fire up the donkey bbq just yet.

[Ed L]

As to investigating suspicious people.
I've had my barking dogs alert me to people in the pasture.
I'll often walk around the house to the alley or into the back yard to investigate.
Sometimes it's a neighbor, sometimes it's people who have no business back there and they get the police called on them.

Suppose I walk around the side of the house and see someone I don't recognize walking towards the pasture one evening.
I follow them to see if maybe it's my neighbor.
When I round the corner into the alley I get jumped by a youth of a different ethnicity and end up shooting them.
How do you think the media will present my story?

The difference is that you are investigating suspicious activity in and around your property. You can't call the police every time your dog barks or you would eventually be on an ignore list.

In this case we have someone who was patrolling his neighborhood and followed someone who he thought was suspicious and then exited his vehicle against the directions of the 911 operator to confront him.

Had he not exited his vehicle when there was no direct threat to himself or anyone else, the confrontation and shooting would never have occurred.

Had the shooter been investigating a suspicious sound outside, been jumped, and then shot the attacker it would have been an entirely different thing.

[JodyH]

Had the shooter been investigating a suspicious sound outside, been jumped, and then shot the attacker it would have been an entirely different thing.
That's exactly what Zimmerman is saying happened...
:confused:

[JodyH]

The biggest red flag for me in the media's reporting... the only picture we have of Trayvon is when he was 13 years old?
The police report lists him as 17 years old, 6' tall 160#, that's a full grown man.
Where is a recent picture of Trayvon and why isn't the media plastering it on the front page?

This story is nothing more than a liberal feeding frenzy.
And it pisses me off to see otherwise intelligent people get suckered into buying their story line hook, line and sinker.
Step back and try to view this with skeptical eyes.

I'm not jumping on the Zimmerman bandwagon, but I'm damn sure not ready to lynch him based on the crappy reporting we've had so far.

[David Armstrong]

This is why I hate the "Can I shoot him now? How 'bout now? Now?" nonsense that occurs in the "Tactics" section of firearms forums, as shooters build elaborate scenarios in hopes of being given the green light to shoot the imagined perp. Left unchecked, it leads to mall ninjary such as this guy's.
This. I've regularly argued against that kind of nonsense on mulitple firearms forums. Sadly, on many of them, that leads to the "voice of reson" side getting in trouble for pointing out that so many of the scenarios are mall ninjary (I like that phrase!). "Shoot only if you have to" isn't nearly as appealing to the masses as "shoot any time you can get away with it."

[Mitchell, Esq.]

This. I've regularly argued against that kind of nonsense on mulitple firearms forums. Sadly, on many of them, that leads to the "voice of reson" side getting in trouble for pointing out that so many of the scenarios are mall ninjary (I like that phrase!). "Shoot only if you have to" isn't nearly as appealing to the masses as "shoot any time you can get away with it."

"You're just anti-second amendment and think people should just submit to criminals!!" - that's what you got on a lot of other forums, isn't it?

[NETim]

From what I've been reading, Zimmerman has lead a rather colorful life. Lots of smoke surrounding this fire.

[JodyH]

From what I've been reading, Zimmerman has lead a rather colorful life. Lots of smoke surrounding this fire.
What have you read about Trayvon Martin?
Early reports had him expelled from school for violence and sent to Sanford to "get his life straightened out".
I haven't heard a single word about his background since then.
Things that make you go hmmmmm...

If you want instant sainthood, be a minority that is killed by a white devil.

[NETim]

What have you read about Trayvon Martin?
Early reports had him expelled from school for violence and sent to Sanford to "get his life straightened out".
I haven't heard a single word about his background since then.
Things that make you go hmmmmm...

If you want instant sainthood, be a minority that is killed by a white devil.

I haven't heard a thing about Martin, other than his age, sex and race.

Zimmerman apparently has a history of domestic violence complete with restraining orders. Assault on an undercover LEO where the charges were dropped. (Dad was magistrate, which may have helped.)

Doesn't sound like either were angels.

[Shellback]

I think it's rather disingenous that the only pictures they're showing of Martin look like they were taken when he was 14. Maybe he just looks young...

Everyone's talking about him being a young athlete so I don't understand why he didn't out run the fat ass Zimmerman? Unless he wasn't trying to get away...

[LHS]

This. I've regularly argued against that kind of nonsense on mulitple firearms forums. Sadly, on many of them, that leads to the "voice of reson" side getting in trouble for pointing out that so many of the scenarios are mall ninjary (I like that phrase!). "Shoot only if you have to" isn't nearly as appealing to the masses as "shoot any time you can get away with it."

One of the more frightening aspects of my first CCW course (the first 'public' training course I'd ever taken) was the trio of local community college students who kept asking the instructor "So when can I pop a cap in someone's @$$?". People like that tend to give the rest of us a bad name.

I'm also annoyed by the media's second-guessing of the Stand Your Ground law. IF Zimmerman did chase down Martin, initiated physical contact, and shot him when things started going against him, then it wasn't self-defense, at least by the standards of my locality, regardless of any Stand Your Ground-style laws. Even if he tried to disengage and Martin chased him, it was stupid to get out and go after him in the first place. Remember, the SYG law also applied to Martin. He had no duty to retreat either. All in all, this is a good example of why you should leave policing to the cops, and concentrate on self-defense rather than going looking for trouble.

And yeah, the media is certainly on Martin's side, which is typical, but I would like to see both participants' criminal records.

[Ed L]

Had the shooter been investigating a suspicious sound outside, been jumped, and then shot the attacker it would have been an entirely different thing.


That's exactly what Zimmerman is saying happened...
:confused:

That's not at all what happened. Zimmerman was not on his own property and stepped outside to investigate a suspicious sound.

Zimmerman was driving around under the auspices of neighborhood watch, spotted someone he deemed to be suspicious, called it in to the police, and then against the directions of the dispatcher, left the safety of his car. Had he not left the safety of his car, he would never have gotten into the situation that led to the shooting.

I agree that there are things not being mentioned or are being minimized--like the youth's background of violence, grassstains on the back of Zimmerman along with Zimmerman's bloody face. The pictures of the youth make him look like a child when in fact he was over 6 feet tall, etc.

I'm concerned with avoiding getting into a questionable shooting or questionable situation when possible.

Leaving the safety of your house (or car) when no one's life was in danger is another common element we see in questionable shootings. It all depends on the circumstances and the laws and legal environment where you live.

There are numerous cases that illustrate this, where had the shooter not left the safety of his house/car, the shooting would not have occurred and the shooter's life would have been much better without the financial damages or the emotional turmoil brought on by the threat of going to prison.

Mitchel ESq posted about some Lawyer in AZ who pulled over to have a 'discussion' with someoen who was tailgating him and wound up shooting and killing the guy because he claimed that the man grabbed him by the throat while he was still in the car. Had the lawyer not pulled over, the incident would not have happened, or at least not happened under circumstances that make it appear that the lawyer was a willing participant. It was later revealled that the lawyer had a history of such things. Not a good position to be in.

There was the famous case of someone in Louisianna who left the safety of his house and shot a Japanese exchange student who approached him who he believed was a burglar. It turned out the Japanese exchange student was going to a Halloween party and had the wrong house and had knocked on one door to the house and went around to knock on another door. The man held the gun at the Japanese student and ordered him to halt; while the Japanese student continued to advance--eithe rbecause he didn't understand or thought it was a joke. The homeowner wound up shooting him and going on trial for murder. Had he not left the safety of his locked house, the shooting would not have occurred. It undercuts your argument that you were in fear of your life when you leave the safety of your locked home to confront someone who isn't a direct threat to you or anyone else.

Google the Roderick Scott Trial. A black man in upstate NY called 911 to report that teenagers were breaking into cars on his street. After being informed by the 911 operator that the police could not be there for at least a half hour, he went outside with his licensed handgun to confront them (I believe there were three whites in their late teens). One of them rushed him and he wound up shooting the teen 2-3 times, killing him. If I remember correctly one of the rounds hit the teen in the side as he was turning away--as one might expect in a fast moving situation. The end result; the shooter went on trial for manslaughter and was found not guilty. Central to the case was the fact that he left the safety of his house to confront someone, without which the situation would not have occurred.

Look at the Joe Horn shooting in TX, where against the directions of the 911 Operator, Joe Horn, the homeowner, left the safety of his house to confront two people who had broken into his neighbor's home and were escaping. He wound up shooting and killing both of them. The matter went to the Grand Jury and the shooter barely missed going on trial.

It ultimately depends on the specifics of the situation, the laws, and the legal environment where the shooting occurs. But leaving the safety of your car/home to confront someone who otherwise isn't a threat is a common denominator.

[Savage Hands]

The biggest red flag for me in the media's reporting... the only picture we have of Trayvon is when he was 13 years old?
The police report lists him as 17 years old, 6' tall 160#, that's a full grown man.
Where is a recent picture of Trayvon and why isn't the media plastering it on the front page?

This story is nothing more than a liberal feeding frenzy.
And it pisses me off to see otherwise intelligent people get suckered into buying their story line hook, line and sinker.
Step back and try to view this with skeptical eyes.

I'm not jumping on the Zimmerman bandwagon, but I'm damn sure not ready to lynch him based on the crappy reporting we've had so far.


I agree.

[Madnik]

Some of the 911 tapes transcribed with some of the time line filled in:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012...lorida-teen-is-shot/

911 calls paint picture of chaos after Florida teen is shot

The death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teen who was shot while walking in his neighborhood in Sanford, Florida, has sparked allegations of racial profiling and calls for the gunman to be charged.

Federal prosecutors and the FBI will investigate the incident.

George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer who has acknowledged shooting Martin, has not been charged and says it was self-defense.

Martin, 17, was killed while walking to his father's fiancee's house in Sanford from a nearby convenience store.

Zimmerman first called police at 7:09 p.m. ET with concerns about a suspicious teen in the area, according to 911 tapes released by the Seminole County Sheriff's Department.

A 16-year-old girl who was on the phone with Martin most of the day last spoke to him around the time the incident allegedly began and lasted until 7:16 p.m. ET, when the call dropped. Almost immediately, 911 calls began coming in. Police arrived on the scene at 7:17 p.m.

Several witnesses called 911 at 7:16, 7:17, 7:18 and 7:19 p.m. ET.

Below are the transcripts of the calls as Zimmerman and witnesses describe what they saw and heard that night:

7:09 p.m. ET

Dispatcher: "Do you need police, fire or medical?"

Zimmerman: "We had some break-ins in our neighborhood ... and there is a real suspicious guy. ... This guy looks like he's up to no good, he's on drugs or something. It's raining, and he's walking around looking about. "

Dispatcher: "Is this guy white, black, Hispanic?"

Zimmerman: "He looks black."

Dispatcher: "Did you see what he's wearing?"

Zimmerman: "A dark hoodie, grey hoodie, jeans or sweatpants or white shoes. He's walking around staring at the houses. Now he's just staring at me."

Dispatcher: "Location?"

Zimmerman: "He's near the clubhouse right now. Now he's coming towards me. He has his hands in his waistband. He is a black male. Something's wrong with him. Yep. He's coming to check me out. He's got something in his hands. I don't know what his deal is. Send officers over here."

Dispatcher: "Let me know if he does anything else."

Zimmerman: "These a**holes, they always get away. When you come in go straight to the left ... when you pass the clubhouse ..."

Dispatcher: "Clubhouse?"

Zimmerman: "Go straight in. Oh, s***. He's running ... down towards the other entrance of neighborhood."

Dispatcher: "He's running? Which way is he running?"

Zimmerman: "Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood."

Dispatcher: "Which entrance is that, that he is running towards?

Zimmerman: "The back entrance."

[inaudible]

Dispatcher: "Are you following him?"

Zimmerman: "Yeah."

Dispatcher: "OK. We don't need you to do that. What's your name?"

Zimmerman: "George. Zimmerman."

Dispatcher: "Do you want to meet with the officer ..."

Zimmerman: "Tell them to come past the clubhouse and make a left then past mailboxes and they will see my truck ..."

Dispatcher: "What's your apartment number?"

Zimmerman: "It's a home. ... I don't want to give that out. I don't know who this kid is."

Dispatcher: "I will let them know where to meet you."

Zimmerman: "Have them call me, and I will let you know where I'm at."

------

During part of this time, Martin is on the phone with a 16-year-old girl. Below is an account of the phone call as relayed to In Session's Sunny Hostin by a lawyer for the Martin family:

Martin told the girl someone was following him, and she advised him to run. Martin said he isn't going to run but will walk quickly. Zimmerman caught up with him, and Martin asked Zimmerman why he was following him. Zimmerman then asked Martin his name and why he was there. The girl on the phone says she heard Zimmerman push Martin, and then the call drops. She tried to call Martin back, but he didn't respond.

------

7:16 p.m. ET

Dispatcher: "Do you need police, fire or medical?"

Caller: "Maybe both. I'm not sure. There's just someone screaming outside."

Dispatcher: "Is it a male or female?"

Caller: "It sounds like a male."

Dispatcher: "You don't know why?"

Caller: "I don't know why. I think they are yelling 'help,' but I don't know. Just end someone quick, please."

Dispatcher: "Does he look hurt to you?"

Caller: "I can't see him. I don't want to go out there. I don't know what's going on."

Dispatcher: "So you think he's yelling help?"

Caller: "Yes. There's gunshots."

Dispatcher: "How many?"

Caller: "Just one."

[inaudible]

Dispatcher: "Is he right outside?"

Caller: "Yes. Pretty much out the back, yes."

Dispatcher: "Is he in front of it or behind it?"

Caller: "He's behind my house."

Dispatcher: "I don't hear him yelling anymore. Do you hear anything?"

Caller: "No, I don't because I'm hiding upstairs. The gunshot was outside our house. You sent somebody, right?"

Dispatcher: "Do you hear any vehicles leaving or anything else?

Caller: "There's people yelling down there, but I don't want to go down there."

Dispatcher: "People are yelling now?"

Caller: "Yeah."

Dispatcher: "We do have officers on the way. Call us back if you see any vehicles leaving or anything."

------

7:16 p.m. ET

Dispatcher: "Police, fire or medical?"

Caller: "There's someone screaming outside."

Dispatcher: "Is that at where you are at?"

Caller: "Oh, my God, there is a gunshot, hurry up."

[inaudible]

Dispatcher: "Do you see anybody? I don't need you to go outside."

Caller: "There is someone screaming. I just heard a gunshot."

Dispatcher: "Do you see anything? I don't need you to go outside. Do you hear screaming or anything?"

Caller: "Hurry up, they are right outside my house."

Dispatcher: "OK, we [have] police and emergency, OK. Are you in Sanford?"

Caller: "I see police now."

Dispatcher: "You see the officer?"

Caller: "Yeah, but like it's behind the house. There is a dead body there. It's not the front entrance. Oh, my God."

Dispatcher: "Please tell me so I can tell them."

Caller: "If you are looking at my house, it's behind by my back porch."

Dispatcher: "Coming from behind your house?"

Caller: "Yes, the back porch."

Dispatcher: "Stay on the line and update me."

Caller: "I just heard screaming and a gunshot."

Dispatcher: "We have an officer there. Did you hear any more gunshots?"

Caller: "No, I don't hear. Hurry up, hurry up."

Dispatcher: "OK, we have officers out there, OK? If anything changes, give us a call back, but we do have officers there. One officer is there."

Caller: "OK, did he see anything?"

Dispatcher: "I'm not sure, ma'am, I just know he is there, and two other officers are on their way, OK? If anything changes or anything more, call us back. As far as you know, it's coming from behind your house near your back-porch area? When you hear screaming, was it screaming of female or male?"

Caller: "Male."

Dispatcher: "So, when you heard screaming, it was a male screaming?"

Caller: "Yes. And the guy on top had a white t-shirt."

Dispatcher: "What do you mean guy on top? Did you see a fight?"

Caller: "I don't know, I just looked out my window, and there was a guy on top wearing a white t-shirt."

Dispatcher: "A white t-shirt. Did you see what kind of pants? He was on top of what?"

Caller: "I couldn't see the person he was on."

Dispatcher: "But he was on top of a person?"

Caller: "Yes."

Dispatcher: "The guy with the white t-shirt, did he get up and run?"

Caller: "I don't know. Went to the phone to call you

Dispatcher: "White, black or Hispanic?"

Caller: "I couldn't tell, it was completely dark."

Dispatcher: "We have several units en route."

Caller: "Thank you."

7:17 p.m. ET

Dispatcher: "Do you need police, fire or medical?"

Caller: "I’m looking out my deck, and someone is screaming 'help,' and I don’t know. … I heard a bang. I’m looking out my window, out my backyard, and someone is yelling and screaming 'help.' "

Dispatcher: "You are not the only person calling. We have more than one officer on the scene and another on the way."

Caller: "Oh, my God. I see the person now. I see him walking. There’s a man coming out and people coming out with flashlights. Oh, my God. I don’t know what he did to this person. I can see there is a man walking out with a flashlight right now."

Dispatcher: "Was it a male or female voice?"

Caller: "The man is up right now. Someone is coming over. I’m glad other people called."

Dispatcher: "We should be out there right now."

Caller: "I can open my window and hear it."

Dispatcher: "You can still hear it?"

Caller: "I don’t know what is happening. Someone is laying on the ground."

Dispatcher: "What’s happening? Someone is on the ground? Someone has been shot? Calm down, stay on the line with me. Like I said, we have an officer on the scene, and we have other officers on the line."

Caller: "Oh, my God. They better hurry up. Someone is on the ground. Oh, my God! I see out my back window, sidewalk, grass, something is really bad. There is a man out here with a flashlight."

Dispatcher: "Is this person laying down in the street?"

Caller: "No, it's from my back window."

Dispatcher: "So is the person laying down in the street or in the grass?"

Caller: "The grass. Oh, my God! I think there is another gentleman with a flashlight. ... I think police. Oh, my God! He shot, he shot the person.He says he shot the person. He said he shot the person."

Dispatcher: "Who saying they shot who?"

Caller: "The people out there, a guy is raising his hands up, he's saying he shot a person. I think it's a police officer that's with him right now. arrest - uh - oh, my God, why - why (inaudible)"

Dispatcher: "Our officer is there, he has somebody at gunpoint. They're going to handle the situation from here."

Caller: "Oh! Oh, my God, somebody would be shot!"

Dispatcher: "It's probably going to be best if you stay inside your home for the time being, OK?"

Caller:" I know. I can't believe somebody's killed. He was saying help. Why didn't someone come out and help him?"

Dispatcher: "Listen, we don't know if they been killed ..."

Caller: "Yes, the person is dead, laying on the ground."

Dispatcher: "Just because he's laying on the ground don't mean he's passed. We have an ambulance on the way, and we are probably going to pick him up and take him to the hospital."

Caller: "I didn't see cause it was too dark, and I just heard people screaming 'help me, help me.' And this person shot him! He was like wrestling with him, you know what I mean, on the ground, from what I can see it was very dark. The man didn't try to run away or anything. I don't want to be a witness or anything. I'm scared. Oh, my god, a young boy, I can't imagine, I haven't seen anyone killed. This is a nice neighborhood. Oh, my God, I'm too scared to live here."

Dispatcher: "You don't have to worry right now. We have many officers on the way. Two officers on scene right now, we are on scene, OK?"

-----

7:17 p.m. ET

Dispatcher: "Do you need police, fire or medical?"

Caller: "Police. I just heard a shot behind my house. They are wrestling outside the back of my porch."

Dispatcher: "You just heard one shot go off?""

Caller: "It was either that or a rock at the window or something else. The guy's yelling 'help,' and I'm not going to help."

Dispatcher: "So you can hear someone yelling for help?"

Caller: "I'm pretty sure the guy is dead out here. Holy s***"

Dispatcher: "OK, we have several people calling in. Anything else that you heard?"

Caller: "A guy yelling, 'help.' Oh, my God! There is a guy with a flashlight in the backyard now. I think there's flashlights and a guy. ... I don't know if that's a cop. "

Dispatcher: "OK, we have several calls. Are you sure when you heard voices it was one person yelling, right?"

Caller: "There were two guys in the yard with flashlights, and there is a black guy down like he's been shot, and he's dead."

Dispatcher: "I have several officers going out there."

----–

7:17 p.m. ET

Dispatcher: "Do you need police, fire or medical?"

Caller: "Medical. I think someone has been shot."

Dispatcher: "Why do you think someone has been shot?"

Caller: "Because they are laying in the backyard and a gunshot and they said 'call 911.' Now there are people coming with flashlights ..."

Dispatcher: "And it's in the backyard?"

Caller: "Yes."

Dispatcher: "And someone is laying in the backyard?"

Caller: "Yes, there are people around him now."

Dispatcher: "You there with kids?"

Caller: "Yes, my daughter. He is a black guy."

Dispatcher: "We have units on the way. What do you mean it's a black guy?"

Caller: "There is a black male standing over him."

Dispatcher: "Can you tell me what he's wearing?"

Caller: "I think someone else called 911."

Dispatcher: "You do see officers out there?"

Caller: "Yeah, I think that's the flashlights that we see."

-----–

7:18 p.m. ET

Dispatcher: "Do you need police, fire or medical?"

Caller: "This is 911, correct? Police or medical. Someone is yelling two doors down from me, screaming, hollering 'help, help, help.' There is an elderly man that lives down there. I don't know. I heard a gunshot. I don't know if it would be ambulance."

Dispatcher: "How many shots did you hear?"

Caller: "One."

Dispatcher: "How long ago?"

Caller: "As soon as I heard that I picked up the phone and called."

Dispatcher: "Before calling 911?"

Caller: "Yes. There is somebody out by my back porch. ... There is someone walking around with a flashlight. The police may already be here. I don't know. Someone is out there with a flashlight, but I did hear something."

Dispatcher: "We do have units there."

Caller: "Oh, my God."

Dispatcher: "And the screaming, was it a male or female you heard?"

Caller: "It sounded to me like a male, and from what I know and I've been here four years, there is an elderly man that lives like four doors down, um, north of me, and I'm inside."

Dispatcher: "Do you think it's coming from your area?"

Caller: "I don't know, ma'am, I'm standing at my back sliding glass door. I don't see anything but a flashlight shining around, but I did hear someone yelling 'help, help, help' or 'oh, my gosh' and something, then moaning and a boom, and I picked up the phone and called."

Dispatcher: "Did you see or hear anything else like a vehicle pulling away?"

Caller: "No, ma'am, because I'm in the back, and in the back there is just a walkway. It could have been someone in the front with a car, I don't know, but I was in the back. It was scary. There is someone still back there with flashlights walking around."

Dispatcher: "There should be someone on the scene ..."

-----–

7:19 p.m. ET

Dispatcher: "Do you need police, fire or medical?"

Caller: "My brother said someone got shot behind our house."

Dispatcher: "Is your brother out there right now?"

Caller: "No, he ran in the house."

Dispatcher: "Do you know who was shot?"

Caller: "No idea. ... I'm inside. It's behind our house. ... Yeah."

Dispatcher: "You didn't see or hear anything else? Did you hear the shot?"

Caller: "I heard something, and my brother ran in the house."

Dispatcher: "My brother saw it."

Dispatcher: "What did you see?"

Caller: "I saw a man laying on the ground screaming who needed help. I was going to go over there to try and help him, but my dog got off the leash, and I ran and got him, and I hurried around and down, and the screaming stopped."

Dispatcher: "Did you see the person get shot?"

Caller: "No."

Dispatcher: Did you know the person who got shot, or did you see the person with the gun?"

Caller: "No, I just heard a shot, and the screaming stopped."

-----–

Officers arrived on the scene at 7:17 p.m. ET, according to a police report.

Officers Timothy Smith and Ricardo Alayo said they noted a black male in a gray hooded sweatshirt lying face-down in the grass, as well as a white male in the area.

"Zimmerman stated that he had shot the subject and was still armed," Smith wrote in a police report.

Smith said he asked Zimmerman to hand over the weapon, a Kel Tec 9 mm, and handcuffed him.

"While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and he was covered in grass, as if he was laying on his back on the ground," Smith wrote in the police report. "Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and the back of the head."

The officers also made several attempts to revive Martin.

When police put Zimmerman in the back of the cruiser, he said, "I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me," according to the police report.

Post by: CNN news blog editor Mallory Simon

[Shellback]

Why didn't the 13 year old Kansas boy get the same attention after 2 black guys dumped gasoline on him and let him on fire (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-04/news/31122324_1_white-boy-fire-tv-station2) last week? You don't hear anything about this hate crime on Fox news or talk radio.

"They rushed him on the porch as he tried to get the door open," Coon told KMBC. "(One of them) poured the gasoline, then flicked the Bic, and said, 'This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, white boy.'"

By lighting the gasoline, the second attacker "produced a large fireball burning the face and hair" of the boy, according to a Kansas City Police Department report obtained by KCTV.

[Mike Honcho]

Why didn't the 13 year old Kansas boy get the same attention after 2 black guys dumped gasoline on him and let him on fire (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-04/news/31122324_1_white-boy-fire-tv-station2) last week? You don't hear anything about this hate crime on Fox news or talk radio.

Doesn't fit the paradigm we've been told is the only way racially-motivated crimes occur. Hence, irrelevant.

[Tamara]

Why didn't the 13 year old Kansas boy get the same attention after 2 black guys dumped gasoline on him and let him on fire (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-04/news/31122324_1_white-boy-fire-tv-station2) last week? You don't hear anything about this hate crime on Fox news or talk radio.

Good thing they didn't have guns, somebody could have gotten hurt.

[JConn]

Why didn't the 13 year old Kansas boy get the same attention after 2 black guys dumped gasoline on him and let him on fire (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-04/news/31122324_1_white-boy-fire-tv-station2) last week? You don't hear anything about this hate crime on Fox news or talk radio.

The Florida story is a liberal reporters wet dream. They get to use the race card against a "white Hispanic, " and they get to bash guns and concealed carry laws. The Kansas City story is just a heinous crime, there is nothing politically advantageous about it.

[JodyH]

I see a political angle to this story in a battleground state.


Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

[TCinVA]

Mr. Zimmerman's predicament here brings up some pretty important lessons for those inclined to learn from the circumstances of others.

Let's stipulate for the sake of illustration that Mr. Zimmerman's actions were 100% justifiable, and that at the moment he pulled the trigger he was in reasonable fear for his life.

Was it worth it?

Look at what he's facing now. He's been branded a murderer. Worse, he's been branded a racist murderer. Where a rap artist or NBA star who kills somebody will be forgiven in the public consciousness as long as their new album is critically acclaimed or their stats are good, Mr. Zimmerman's life from now on will come to be defined by this moment when he killed what a huge chunk of the population will only ever believe was an innocent young black boy who was doing nothing wrong. Mr. Zimmerman is looking down the pointy end of criminal and civil liability out the wazoo. His physical and financial freedom are both now at stake. There's enormous pressure in some communities to basically lynch the man because some communities won't care about the facts, only that the outcome wasn't desirable in their view. Hell, even among self defense enthusiasts this guy's getting raked over the coals. (Perhaps deservedly...we don't know all the facts yet) If a guy who claims he acts in self defense isn't getting a whole lot of sympathy from people who are all about self defense, what hope does he have with a jury?

All of this...for what?

This is the bit about self defense that lots of people on the internet don't get. In all their "be a man!" and "sheepdog!" chest thumping, they never seem to get around to the question of what it's like to live with the aftermath of using lethal force. It's not pretty. It's expensive. It's time consuming. It is life-changing...and not in the Oprah self help guru sort of way. It introduces unbelievable levels of stress into the mix that you can hardly appreciate if you haven't been at the center of it before. It can ruin marriages. It can break apart families. It can scatter friends to the four winds.

I know some people who have had to use lethal force to defend themselves and have had to face long drawn out investigations and litigation over the incidents. It put unbelievable stress on their lives. I asked one police officer how he managed to hold it together after having gone through a post-shooting horror story that makes the blood run cold. His answer?

"Because I know with absolute certainty that I did the right thing."

If you deal with something you had to deal with because it was thrust upon you, leaving you with no choice in the matter...well...it's probably a lot easier to live with the aftermath if it goes to Zimmerman levels. So we would do well to ask ourselves if whatever it is we are about to do is worth living a Zimmerman.

I'd gladly risk a Zimmerman situation if it meant saving the life of a friend or a loved one. Over petty theft, though? Not so much.

[EMC]

Maybe it would have eaten at his soul if he'd done nothing.

;-)


holster-sniffin' Strange Ranger.

These are but a few examples of why I love this forum.

[EMC]

This isn't the first time armed neighborhood watch went wrong. We had a nice incident in Utah a few years ago where a Dad came and shot up the armed neighborhood watchman and paralyzed him. All because the daughter told her Dad that the guys were following her and her friends. Dad freaks and does the "chase them down, vigilante style". Neighborhood watch needs to be WATCHING and calling ONLY. No pursuing, no chasing, no following.



Mr. Zimmerman's predicament here brings up some pretty important lessons for those inclined to learn from the circumstances of others.

Let's stipulate for the sake of illustration that Mr. Zimmerman's actions were 100% justifiable, and that at the moment he pulled the trigger he was in reasonable fear for his life.

Was it worth it?

Look at what he's facing now. He's been branded a murderer. Worse, he's been branded a racist murderer. Where a rap artist or NBA star who kills somebody will be forgiven in the public consciousness as long as their new album is critically acclaimed or their stats are good, Mr. Zimmerman's life from now on will come to be defined by this moment when he killed what a huge chunk of the population will only ever believe was an innocent young black boy who was doing nothing wrong. Mr. Zimmerman is looking down the pointy end of criminal and civil liability out the wazoo. His physical and financial freedom are both now at stake. There's enormous pressure in some communities to basically lynch the man because some communities won't care about the facts, only that the outcome wasn't desirable in their view. Hell, even among self defense enthusiasts this guy's getting raked over the coals. (Perhaps deservedly...we don't know all the facts yet) If a guy who claims he acts in self defense isn't getting a whole lot of sympathy from people who are all about self defense, what hope does he have with a jury?

All of this...for what?

This is the bit about self defense that lots of people on the internet don't get. In all their "be a man!" and "sheepdog!" chest thumping, they never seem to get around to the question of what it's like to live with the aftermath of using lethal force. It's not pretty. It's expensive. It's time consuming. It is life-changing...and not in the Oprah self help guru sort of way. It introduces unbelievable levels of stress into the mix that you can hardly appreciate if you haven't been at the center of it before. It can ruin marriages. It can break apart families. It can scatter friends to the four winds.

I know some people who have had to use lethal force to defend themselves and have had to face long drawn out investigations and litigation over the incidents. It put unbelievable stress on their lives. I asked one police officer how he managed to hold it together after having gone through a post-shooting horror story that makes the blood run cold. His answer?

"Because I know with absolute certainty that I did the right thing."

If you deal with something you had to deal with because it was thrust upon you, leaving you with no choice in the matter...well...it's probably a lot easier to live with the aftermath if it goes to Zimmerman levels. So we would do well to ask ourselves if whatever it is we are about to do is worth living a Zimmerman.

I'd gladly risk a Zimmerman situation if it meant saving the life of a friend or a loved one. Over petty theft, though? Not so much.

[LHS]

Nail. Head.


Mr. Zimmerman's predicament here brings up some pretty important lessons for those inclined to learn from the circumstances of others.

Let's stipulate for the sake of illustration that Mr. Zimmerman's actions were 100% justifiable, and that at the moment he pulled the trigger he was in reasonable fear for his life.

Was it worth it?

Look at what he's facing now. He's been branded a murderer. Worse, he's been branded a racist murderer. Where a rap artist or NBA star who kills somebody will be forgiven in the public consciousness as long as their new album is critically acclaimed or their stats are good, Mr. Zimmerman's life from now on will come to be defined by this moment when he killed what a huge chunk of the population will only ever believe was an innocent young black boy who was doing nothing wrong. Mr. Zimmerman is looking down the pointy end of criminal and civil liability out the wazoo. His physical and financial freedom are both now at stake. There's enormous pressure in some communities to basically lynch the man because some communities won't care about the facts, only that the outcome wasn't desirable in their view. Hell, even among self defense enthusiasts this guy's getting raked over the coals. (Perhaps deservedly...we don't know all the facts yet) If a guy who claims he acts in self defense isn't getting a whole lot of sympathy from people who are all about self defense, what hope does he have with a jury?

All of this...for what?

This is the bit about self defense that lots of people on the internet don't get. In all their "be a man!" and "sheepdog!" chest thumping, they never seem to get around to the question of what it's like to live with the aftermath of using lethal force. It's not pretty. It's expensive. It's time consuming. It is life-changing...and not in the Oprah self help guru sort of way. It introduces unbelievable levels of stress into the mix that you can hardly appreciate if you haven't been at the center of it before. It can ruin marriages. It can break apart families. It can scatter friends to the four winds.

I know some people who have had to use lethal force to defend themselves and have had to face long drawn out investigations and litigation over the incidents. It put unbelievable stress on their lives. I asked one police officer how he managed to hold it together after having gone through a post-shooting horror story that makes the blood run cold. His answer?

"Because I know with absolute certainty that I did the right thing."

If you deal with something you had to deal with because it was thrust upon you, leaving you with no choice in the matter...well...it's probably a lot easier to live with the aftermath if it goes to Zimmerman levels. So we would do well to ask ourselves if whatever it is we are about to do is worth living a Zimmerman.

I'd gladly risk a Zimmerman situation if it meant saving the life of a friend or a loved one. Over petty theft, though? Not so much.

[Tamara]

Mr. Zimmerman's predicament here brings up some pretty important lessons for those inclined to learn from the circumstances of others.

Let's stipulate for the sake of illustration that Mr. Zimmerman's actions were 100% justifiable, and that at the moment he pulled the trigger he was in reasonable fear for his life.

Was it worth it?

Look at what he's facing now. He's been branded a murderer. Worse, he's been branded a racist murderer. Where a rap artist or NBA star who kills somebody will be forgiven in the public consciousness as long as their new album is critically acclaimed or their stats are good, Mr. Zimmerman's life from now on will come to be defined by this moment when he killed what a huge chunk of the population will only ever believe was an innocent young black boy who was doing nothing wrong. Mr. Zimmerman is looking down the pointy end of criminal and civil liability out the wazoo. His physical and financial freedom are both now at stake. There's enormous pressure in some communities to basically lynch the man because some communities won't care about the facts, only that the outcome wasn't desirable in their view. Hell, even among self defense enthusiasts this guy's getting raked over the coals. (Perhaps deservedly...we don't know all the facts yet) If a guy who claims he acts in self defense isn't getting a whole lot of sympathy from people who are all about self defense, what hope does he have with a jury?

All of this...for what?

This is the bit about self defense that lots of people on the internet don't get. In all their "be a man!" and "sheepdog!" chest thumping, they never seem to get around to the question of what it's like to live with the aftermath of using lethal force. It's not pretty. It's expensive. It's time consuming. It is life-changing...and not in the Oprah self help guru sort of way. It introduces unbelievable levels of stress into the mix that you can hardly appreciate if you haven't been at the center of it before. It can ruin marriages. It can break apart families. It can scatter friends to the four winds.

I know some people who have had to use lethal force to defend themselves and have had to face long drawn out investigations and litigation over the incidents. It put unbelievable stress on their lives. I asked one police officer how he managed to hold it together after having gone through a post-shooting horror story that makes the blood run cold. His answer?

"Because I know with absolute certainty that I did the right thing."

If you deal with something you had to deal with because it was thrust upon you, leaving you with no choice in the matter...well...it's probably a lot easier to live with the aftermath if it goes to Zimmerman levels. So we would do well to ask ourselves if whatever it is we are about to do is worth living a Zimmerman.

I'd gladly risk a Zimmerman situation if it meant saving the life of a friend or a loved one. Over petty theft, though? Not so much.
Dude, I am begging you to let me cut'n'paste that with proper attribution at my blog. That's frickin' gold right there. It should come printed on the back of CCW permits.

[NickA]

TC you're a genius, and have permanently lost the right to claim "Oh I can't really write anyway. " Very, very well said.
I agree with your take on the "sheepdog" thing. I'm a sheepdog alright, for MY family, not anyone else's.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[rsa-otc]

TC you're a genius, and have permanently lost the right to claim "Oh I can't really write anyway. " Very, very well said.
I agree with your take on the "sheepdog" thing. I'm a sheepdog alright, for MY family, not anyone else's.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

+1000

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Sheepdogs are disposable, sometimes single use tools.

Are people really that sure they want to be one? I'm just sayin...

[NickA]

Sheepdogs are disposable, sometimes single use tools.

Are people really that sure they want to be one? I'm just sayin...

Exactly. A sheepdog torn apart by wolves had it easy compared to what Zimmerman is going to go through.
I have no intention of wandering the earth like a cross between a Great Pyrenees and Kwai Chang Caine, saving the innocent.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[JHC]

A more serious threat, but happier outcome:

http://www.ajc.com/news/man-with-knife-tries-1394728.html

A Covington woman fought off a butcher-knife-wielding man who tried to kidnap her and her grandchild in broad daylight in a craft store parking lot in Conyers Wednesday.

"She said she wasn't going to let anything happen to that baby," Conyers Police Chief Gene Wilson told the Rockdale County News.

A suspect is being held in the Rockdale County Jail and faces charges in the kidnapping, Wilson told the newspaper.

Wilson told the newspaper that the woman, who is in her 50s, walked out of Hobby Lobby on Ga. Highway 138 at about 4 p.m. Wednesday to her car, which was parked near the front of the store. The woman put the child in the car and then went around to the driver's side door. The suspect came up and held the knife to the woman's throat in an apparent attempt to take her, the car and the child inside the car, Wilson told the newspaper.

Wilson said the woman saved herself by screaming and continuing to scream. When people came to the woman's aid, the suspect dropped the knife and fled in a rental car. A passerby jumped in his car and followed the suspect south on Ga. 138 until the suspect ditched the car behind a U.S. Post Office, Wilson told the newspaper.

Police caught the suspect a short time later, Wilson said.The suspect, who is believed to be from Atlanta and in his 20s, has been charged with armed robbery, kidnapping and endangering a child, Wilson said. He said the suspect would be identified through fingerprints after he gave police two different names.

Wilson told the newspaper the suspect was wearing two pairs of pants and had latex gloves and wire ties to use as handcuffs on him.

He said the victim sustained bruises to her arms and emotional trauma.

[LOKNLOD]

Sheepdogs are disposable, sometimes single use tools.

Are people really that sure they want to be one? I'm just sayin...

That's an interesting point.

Funny how there is discussion in the Pets! thread about dogs, no matter how loved, being (consumable) defenders first and friends second in dire circumstances, but this is the first time I've seen that cross-referenced to ourselves...

[JHC]

But Zimmerman's case is nothing like the one just referenced in Conyers/Covington is it?

[Mitchell, Esq.]

That's an interesting point.

Funny how there is discussion in the Pets! thread about dogs, no matter how loved, being (consumable) defenders first and friends second in dire circumstances, but this is the first time I've seen that cross-referenced to ourselves...

Everyone is into the animal metaphor thing, so here's mine: Be a house cat.

Avoid problems, and when they come to you hide, and have the bigger, dumber dog or the equally stupid human handle it for you if at all possible.

If that isn't possible, then go over, around, under or through the problem as violently as possible.

If you need to attack, then strike without warning, and never, ever fight...just do the job and run like hell.

Then, look cute and cuddly, vomit on the floor (which the human will clean up) then lay in the sun till someone drops catnip on you, then get hight and twitch for an hour.

[Zhurdan]

But Zimmerman's case is nothing like the one just referenced in Conyers/Covington is it?

Nope... No one "manned up" to run to the screams for help. :eek:

A problem avoided is not really a problem. Zimmerman purposefully stomped in dog poop and now is wondering why his shoe stinks.

[Mike Honcho]

Everyone is into the animal metaphor thing, so here's mine: Be a house cat.

Avoid problems, and when they come to you hide, and have the bigger, dumber dog or the equally stupid human handle it for you if at all possible.

If that isn't possible, then go over, around, under or through the problem as violently as possible.

If you need to attack, then strike without warning, and never, ever fight...just do the job and run like hell.

Then, look cute and cuddly, vomit on the floor (which the human will clean up) then lay in the sun till someone drops catnip on you, then get hight and twitch for an hour.

Awesome. Unfortunately, "House Cat" doesn't make cool patches, cool screen names on forums (I fucking hate, absolutely despise, the word "sheepdog" and as soon as I see it as a poster's name, I usually scroll right on by), or sound as cool in internet rants about what a bad mofo you are/intend to be.

TC and Mitchell made pretty much the checkmate posts in this thread (I assume this is the right term. I dunno, 'cuz sheepdogs know chess is gay, therefore I don't know anything about it).

[TGS]

Now Obama is involved.

I think that Zimmerman is up shits creek.

[Tamara]

Now Obama is involved.

I think that Zimmerman is up ***** creek.

I'll bet I can name somebody who wishes like heck that he'd just stayed in his truck and Been A Good Witness right about now.

It's hard to think through all the possible externalities ahead of time, and sometimes you're just going to wind up stepping in front of that truck whether you want to or not, but it does make one think.

I had a friend once who bought a Chicom AK when they first started importing them. Folding spike bayonet and the works. He told me that when he was home from school, he kept it with a full mag, "just in case someone broke in". (He was, I guess, 18 or 19 at the time.)

Thing is, dude collected militaria. Mostly WWII. Some British, American, and Japanese stuff, but also a lot of German. Now he was no Nazi or anything, in fact, he was more of a hippie/beatnik type, but he just liked war stuff, and it caught him completely off guard when I asked him how the local paper would portray it if he ever shot a home intruder with a skin tone any darker than his own somewhat pale beige. With an AK. And had a swastika flag and a couple SS uniforms in the closet.

[Zhurdan]

I'll bet I can name somebody who wishes like heck that he'd just stayed in his truck and Been A Good Witness right about now.

It's hard to think through all the possible externalities ahead of time, and sometimes you're just going to wind up stepping in front of that truck whether you want to or not, but it does make one think.

I had a friend once who bought a Chicom AK when they first started importing them. Folding spike bayonet and the works. He told me that when he was home from school, he kept it with a full mag, "just in case someone broke in". (He was, I guess, 18 or 19 at the time.)

Thing is, dude collected militaria. Mostly WWII. Some British, American, and Japanese stuff, but also a lot of German. Now he was no Nazi or anything, in fact, he was more of a hippie/beatnik type, but he just liked war stuff, and it caught him completely off guard when I asked him how the local paper would portray it if he ever shot a home intruder with a skin tone any darker than his own somewhat pale beige. With an AK. And had a swastika flag and a couple SS uniforms in the closet.

Perception is reality.

[rsa-otc]

The evidence that I have seen "so far" makes me believe at this point Zimmerman has a big problem. Given the reaction to this shooting, I am scared of what is going to happen if after all the "Investigations" are complete and the decision is that Zimmerman is in the clear. Is the family and more importantly the community at large going to accept that decision or has public opinion gotten to the point we will see the LA/Miami riots all over again?

[rsa-otc]

Now Obama is involved.

I think that Zimmerman is up shits creek.

I was prepared to say that all Obama did was throw gas on the fire, but after listening to his statement I think he did a fair job. I still think he could have done more to quell the public's uproar.

Zimmerman may well be thrown to the wolves if only for political reasons.

[JHC]

Mr. Zimmerman's predicament here brings up some pretty important lessons for those inclined to learn from the circumstances of others.

Let's stipulate for the sake of illustration that Mr. Zimmerman's actions were 100% justifiable, and that at the moment he pulled the trigger he was in reasonable fear for his life.

Was it worth it?

Look at what he's facing now. He's been branded a murderer. Worse, he's been branded a racist murderer. Where a rap artist or NBA star who kills somebody will be forgiven in the public consciousness as long as their new album is critically acclaimed or their stats are good, Mr. Zimmerman's life from now on will come to be defined by this moment when he killed what a huge chunk of the population will only ever believe was an innocent young black boy who was doing nothing wrong. Mr. Zimmerman is looking down the pointy end of criminal and civil liability out the wazoo. His physical and financial freedom are both now at stake. There's enormous pressure in some communities to basically lynch the man because some communities won't care about the facts, only that the outcome wasn't desirable in their view. Hell, even among self defense enthusiasts this guy's getting raked over the coals. (Perhaps deservedly...we don't know all the facts yet) If a guy who claims he acts in self defense isn't getting a whole lot of sympathy from people who are all about self defense, what hope does he have with a jury?

All of this...for what?

This is the bit about self defense that lots of people on the internet don't get. In all their "be a man!" and "sheepdog!" chest thumping, they never seem to get around to the question of what it's like to live with the aftermath of using lethal force. It's not pretty. It's expensive. It's time consuming. It is life-changing...and not in the Oprah self help guru sort of way. It introduces unbelievable levels of stress into the mix that you can hardly appreciate if you haven't been at the center of it before. It can ruin marriages. It can break apart families. It can scatter friends to the four winds.

I know some people who have had to use lethal force to defend themselves and have had to face long drawn out investigations and litigation over the incidents. It put unbelievable stress on their lives. I asked one police officer how he managed to hold it together after having gone through a post-shooting horror story that makes the blood run cold. His answer?

"Because I know with absolute certainty that I did the right thing."

If you deal with something you had to deal with because it was thrust upon you, leaving you with no choice in the matter...well...it's probably a lot easier to live with the aftermath if it goes to Zimmerman levels. So we would do well to ask ourselves if whatever it is we are about to do is worth living a Zimmerman.

I'd gladly risk a Zimmerman situation if it meant saving the life of a friend or a loved one. Over petty theft, though? Not so much.

Zimmerman screwed it up about as bad as someone could. You make great points but if one is applying them to any and all interventions then it is too much of a reach IMO. The bolded bottom line quote is definitely the bottom line.

[Ed L]

I had a friend once who bought a Chicom AK when they first started importing them. Folding spike bayonet and the works. He told me that when he was home from school, he kept it with a full mag, "just in case someone broke in". (He was, I guess, 18 or 19 at the time.)

Thing is, dude collected militaria. Mostly WWII. Some British, American, and Japanese stuff, but also a lot of German. Now he was no Nazi or anything, in fact, he was more of a hippie/beatnik type, but he just liked war stuff, and it caught him completely off guard when I asked him how the local paper would portray it if he ever shot a home intruder with a skin tone any darker than his own somewhat pale beige. With an AK. And had a swastika flag and a couple SS uniforms in the closet.

Different situation. In the case of a break in to an occupied dweling the person in the house is in fear of his life. There are laws in the books even in places like NY & California that allow you to use deadly physical force to terminate the burglary of an occupied dwelling. I can find many cases of people who used AKs and ARs to shoot and even kill burglars/home invaders without suffering any consequences.

Collectors collect. The Axis souvenirs might have been problematic, but they don't abrogate a person's right to self defense nor make it legal people to burglarize or home invade them.

The person's actions and circumstances that led up to the shooting are more important. There are at least two cases of people who used SKS' to shoot someone who wound up facing murder charges. Both of them left the safety of their home with the SKS to confront someone who was not a direct threat to them and wound up shooting and killing that person. It wasn't the 'evil' gun that led to their trials but the questionable act of leaving the safety of their home to ocnfront someone who wasn't at the time a direct threat to them or anyone else.

[Ed L]

Zimmerman screwed it up about as bad as someone could. You make great points but if one is applying them to any and all interventions then it is too much of a reach IMO. The bolded bottom line quote is definitely the bottom line.

I think TCinVA is referring to avoiding getting involved in questionable situations where you can safey leave or avoid getting involved in the first place, and where no-one's safety is directly at stake.

[Tamara]

Different situation.

I am well aware of that. You are well aware of that. Cops, lawyers, judges, jurors, and everybody reading this forum is well aware of that.

The editorial staff at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Al Sharpton, and/or the good folks at the SPLC might not be so clued in on these nuances, however.

I wasn't trying to draw a perfect parallel between the situations; I was merely suggesting that sometimes we might not be aware of the way things may get spun in the court of public opinion afterwards. (My suggestion to my friend was that, if he was going to load anything, let it be his dad's duck gun. Probably a better choice than 7.62x39 ball for cutting loose in a frame house in the middle of a subdivision, anyway.)

[JodyH]

Now Obama is involved.

I think that Zimmerman is up shits creek.
I saw this coming from newsday 1.
Perfect opportunity to secure the base and sway the ignorant.
Plus there's a Bush to blame for the stand your ground law.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

[joshs]

I saw this coming from newsday 1.
Perfect opportunity to secure the base and sway the ignorant.
Plus there's a Bush to blame for the stand your ground law.

He actually avoided commenting on the law. I think he is (intelligently) avoiding coming down on either side until more facts are available. Hence, the use of vague comments about justice being done.

[Ed L]

I am well aware of that. You are well aware of that. Cops, lawyers, judges, jurors, and everybody reading this forum is well aware of that.

The editorial staff at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Al Sharpton, and/or the good folks at the SPLC might not be so clued in on these nuances, however.

I wasn't trying to draw a perfect parallel between the situations; I was merely suggesting that sometimes we might not be aware of the way things may get spun in the court of public opinion afterwards. (My suggestion to my friend was that, if he was going to load anything, let it be his dad's duck gun. Probably a better choice than 7.62x39 ball for cutting loose in a frame house in the middle of a subdivision, anyway.)

I understand what you are saying, but I've seen people use the same train of logic to argue against using hollowpoint ammo, AR-15s, high capacity autos, riot guns, and buckshot, as these firearms and ammo and accessories that can allow you to defend yourself more effectively might be painted by some on a negative light. If you want to follow that path of thought you should probably not have more than 3-4 guns, lest you be accused of building an arsenal and looking for an excuse to use it, or having lots of gun magazines and books that might suggest that you were obsessed with guns, as would doing something like spending a lot of time on online gun forums.

[TGS]

He actually avoided commenting on the law. I think he is (intelligently) avoiding coming down on either side until more facts are available. Hence, the use of vague comments about justice being done.

I see what you're saying, he did pretty much proclaim neutrality and fairness. But the way I look at it is:

If he wasn't interested in using this to his advantage or to push political goals, then he wouldn't have commented at all. Pretty rare for the POTUS to give a crap about a murder case. He chose to comment on this, and at least put his foot in the door for a reason.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

I understand what you are saying, but I've seen people use the same train of logic to argue against using hollowpoint ammo, AR-15s, high capacity autos, riot guns, and buckshot, as these firearms and ammo and accessories that can allow you to defend yourself more effectively might be painted by some on a negative light. If you want to follow that path of thought you should probably not have more than 3-4 guns, lest you be accused of building an arsenal and looking for an excuse to use it, or having lots of gun magazines and books that might suggest that you were obsessed with guns, as would doing something like spending a lot of time on online gun forums.

All that stuff only comes into play if you leave an opening.

I call it the WTF Factor. Stuff that really doesn't matter if the events are clear, but start to matter the more ambigious things are.

When everyone stamps their feet about "A good shoot is a good shoot! None of that stuff matters!!" they aren't accounting for the human factor in that the people making the determination if the shoot is clean look at the people who did the shooting.

If you like to have highly inflamatory stuff on hand, do not be shocked when people look at that and assume bad things about they way you make decissions.

It may be legal to have, but people will make judgements based on what they see.

Even more reason to avoid conflict if at all possible.

[Ed L]

All that stuff only comes into play if you leave an opening.

I call it the WTF Factor. Stuff that really doesn't matter if the events are clear, but start to matter the more ambigious things are.

When everyone stamps their feet about "A good shoot is a good shoot! None of that stuff matters!!" they aren't accounting for the human factor in that the people making the determination if the shoot is clean look at the people who did the shooting.

If you like to have highly inflamatory stuff on hand, do not be shocked when people look at that and assume bad things about they way you make decissions.

It may be legal to have, but people will make judgements based on what they see.

This may be off topic, but can you show me a case where someone was prosecuted for a using an AR-15 or AK or high capacity handgun or hollowpoints for home defense where they did not do something wrong that made the shooting unjustiifed under the laws where it took place, or where the firearm they used was legal to own and was legally owned by the shooter?


Even more reason to avoid conflict if at all possible.

And that, as I have written before, is the big issue at hand here--something that I strongly agree with: avoiding unecessary conflicts where no one's safety is at stake that can be avoided by staying inside your house or your car or safely leaving.

[joshs]

This may be off topic, but can you show me a case where someone was prosecuted for a using an AR-15 or AK or high capacity handgun or hollowpoints for home defense where they did not do something wrong that made the shooting unjustiifed under the laws where it took place, or where the firearm they used was legal to own and was legally owned by the shooter?

Unless you have some level of involvement in the trial, it is generally very difficult to get this information because there is no easily searchable database of trial transcripts and there is no way to know what the jurors took into account in making their judgment. In Hickey I, the prosecution made a big deal out of the fact that Larry used a gun that didn't have a safety (Glock). You should expect that the prosecution will attempt to use any information available.

[Ed L]

In Hickey I, the prosecution made a big deal out of the fact that Larry used a gun that didn't have a safety (Glock).

Do you think he would not have been prosecuted if he had used a .38 revolver with lead roundnosed ammo?

It was the circumstances of the shooting among other things that led to the prosecution, not his firearm choice.

Trying to make a big deal over the fact that he used a Glock that lacked a manual safety is an incredibly weak argument because the Glock is the most popular handgun in use in LE in the US, and it is far from the only one that lacks a manual safety. Arguments like that betray the prosecution's ignorance of firearms and make them appear foolish if the defense attorney has any accumen.

The Hickey shooting was not a home defense shooting or shooting of an unknown criminal attacker, but the shooting of two unarmed neighbors (one of whom was female) who his family was involved in an ongoing dispute with in the street outside of his house. I am not saying that it was in anyway unjustified, but the defendent had a prior negative relationship with the people who he shot which complicates things, and given the totality of the circumstances it turned into a legal clusterfuck.

[David Armstrong]

"You're just anti-second amendment and think people should just submit to criminals!!" - that's what you got on a lot of other forums, isn't it?
That and the obligatory "no REAL MAN would say something like that" or some similar sentiment. Stuff about being a sheepdog instead of a sheep also seems popular.

[JodyH]

In the Harold Fish trial a lot was made about his 10mm pistol being overkill, and there were juror interviews that showed some of the jurors were swayed by that.

[David Armstrong]

Sheepdogs are disposable, sometimes single use tools.

Are people really that sure they want to be one? I'm just sayin...
I think we need a new animal. I like your take with the cat, and I nominate the badger or his bigger cousin the wolverine. Both tend to not worry about much and are going to stay out of the way. But if you try to to take one on, better be ready for some excitement.

[LHS]

This may be off topic, but can you show me a case where someone was prosecuted for a using an AR-15 or AK or high capacity handgun or hollowpoints for home defense where they did not do something wrong that made the shooting unjustiifed under the laws where it took place, or where the firearm they used was legal to own and was legally owned by the shooter?


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_168_28/ai_112685749/?tag=content;col1

Gary Fadden is the first one that comes to mind. As mentioned before, Harold Fish was another.

All in all, it depends on the circumstances of the case and the mindset of the prosecutor. Will it work in court? Maybe, maybe not. Fish was convicted, but he shot an unarmed (albeit crazy) man with three dogs who had attacked him. Fadden wasn't convicted, but it still cost him dearly both financially and socially. Then again, neither of them went looking for trouble, nor did they continue following potential trouble even after being told not to by the 911 operators, so their cases are distinctly different from Zimmerman's.

[David Armstrong]

This may be off topic, but can you show me a case where someone was prosecuted for a using an AR-15 or AK or high capacity handgun or hollowpoints for home defense where they did not do something wrong that made the shooting unjustiifed under the laws where it took place, or where the firearm they used was legal to own and was legally owned by the shooter?
It is off topic, but since I've worked a lot with this sort of thing, I'll throw my two cents in. Rarely is there a single issue that determines if a person is prosecuted or if they are found guilty. It is often an accumulation of issues. Sort of the straw that broke the camel's back sort of thing. No sense in giving the other side more bullets to shoot at you, as it were. And keep in mind that every issue can add time to those billable hours that the attorney and the expert witness are busy racking up. I had one a while back that got me an extra $600 because the client was wearing an ankle holster.

[JHC]

I think TCinVA is referring to avoiding getting involved in questionable situations where you can safey leave or avoid getting involved in the first place, and where no-one's safety is directly at stake.

Amen to that. Questionable means no. Thanks

[LittleLebowski]

I had to vent on my blog. Obama's actions today absolutely infuriated me.

[EMC]

I had to vent on my blog. Obama's actions today absolutely infuriated me.

And the other candidates are following suit since it's politically expedient to their campaigns. Here's a Newt quote I thought was particularly disturbing:


Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia also called it a tragedy and credited local authorities for empaneling a grand jury. "There's a point in there where there ought to be some kind of signal that's pretty clear that this is a guy who'd found a hobby that's very dangerous," Gingrich said of Zimmerman."

I hope Newt is referring to the hobby of being a vigilante and not the hobby of firearms ownership.

Original article: http://www.ksl.com/?sid=19698308&nid=126&title=obama-if-i-had-a-son-hed-look-like-trayvon&s_cid=queue-1

[JodyH]

I had to vent on my blog. Obama's actions today absolutely infuriated me.
I cannot comment without cursing right now...

[Ed L]

In the Harold Fish trial a lot was made about his 10mm pistol being overkill, and there were juror interviews that showed some of the jurors were swayed by that.

The question is wazs he arrested because he used a 10mm w/hollowpoints or because of the facts of the case? They prosecuted him because of the facts of the shooting that he shot an unarmed man multiple times at a time when the laws in AZ were less favorable to the defensive use of firearms.

The big issue with Harold Fish is that he shot at a man's dogs and shot the unarmed man multiple times when he claimed the man attacked him. One or more of those shots were in the man's back, which may have resulted when the attacker suddenly turning to flee as Larry was in the process of shooting him.

The judge prevented evidence from being introduced regarding the violent threatening history of the man who was shot.

Harold Fish also made conflicting statements to the police. Several of those statements were contradictory--like what the guy said when attacking him and at what time the shooting took place, etc. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, the prosecution siezed on these contradictory statements and claimed that Fish had deliberately waited before going for help.

Regarding the 10mm hollowpoints, Fish's lawyer did a very poor job of presenting the case.

The 10mm could easily be explained as wildlife defense, as he was walking in a wilderness area. His lawyer could have also compared the power of the ammo he was using to that of general police issue 40 S&W and shown that it might have been 5-10% more powerful than the most commonly carried police round in the US--hardly overkill.

All the lawyer had to do is request the court balif present a round from one of his spare magazines to emphasize that it was a hollowpoint--the same as carried by 99% of police nationwide.

[MikeO]

This isn't good for concealed carry and/or stand your ground laws.

It's no secret that many in FL (including some LE) do not like either and would like more limits on the former and the latter repealed.

I'm wondering if that's why the local law seems to mess up it's application so often down there? The worse they can make that law look, the better they like it? Was there probable cause to arrest Zimmerman that night? Was there and they chose not to, passing the buck for the reason above?

Or is this what "better to let ten guilty men go free than punish one innocent man" can look like in practice, not theory, when applied to self-defense? Before they arrested just about everybody and let the courts sort it out, which cost some good guys plenty. The present law was a response to that, but opened up another can of worms?

The local law either have a case or they don't. The feds may or may not jump in. When the wheels of justice turn as slow as they seem to be here, it's usually due to money, race, or politics. I can think of reasons why some would like this case to be as slow, loud, and messy as possible.

[JodyH]

I'm smelling a Duke Lacrosse part deux.

[TGS]

This isn't good for concealed carry and/or stand your ground laws.

It's no secret that many in FL (including some LE) do not like either and would like more limits on the former and the latter repealed.

I'm wondering if that's why the local law seems to mess up it's application so often down there? The worse they can make that law look, the better they like it? Was there probable cause to arrest Zimmerman that night? Was there and they chose not to, passing the buck for the reason above?

Or is this what "better to let ten guilty men go free than punish one innocent man" can look like in practice, not theory, when applied to self-defense? Before they arrested just about everybody and let the courts sort it out, which cost some good guys plenty. The present law was a response to that, but opened up another can of worms?

The local law either have a case or they don't. The feds may or may not jump in. When the wheels of justice turn as slow as they seem to be here, it's usually due to money, race, or politics. I can think of reasons why some would like this case to be as slow, loud, and messy as possible.

I don't think it'll have any impact on codified castle doctrine, since castle doctrine doesn't apply to this case to begin with.

[joshs]

The question is wazs he arrested because he used a 10mm w/hollowpoints or because of the facts of the case? They prosecuted him because of the facts of the shooting that he shot an unarmed man multiple times at a time when the laws in AZ were less favorable to the defensive use of firearms.

It's not a question of being arrested or not arrested, it's that the prosecution was able to get the fact in evidence and it may have helped persuade some jurors to believe the prosecution's theory of the case.


The judge prevented evidence from being introduced regarding the violent threatening history of the man who was shot.

Unless the defender knows of the past history of violence, then the evidentiary rules of most jurisdictions that I'm aware of do not allow prior bad acts to be entered into evidence.


Regarding the 10mm hollowpoints, Fish's lawyer did a very poor job of presenting the case.

The 10mm could easily be explained as wildlife defense, as he was walking in a wilderness area. His lawyer could have also compared the power of the ammo he was using to that of general police issue 40 S&W and shown that it might have been 5-10% more powerful than the most commonly carried police round in the US--hardly overkill.

All the lawyer had to do is request the court balif present a round from one of his spare magazines to emphasize that it was a hollowpoint--the same as carried by 99% of police nationwide.

This isn't how you enter information into evidence. The only way to get the information above into evidence is putting the defendant on the stand, on cross examination of the prosecution's expert(s), or with your own expert(s). Each of these things is either very costly or problematic. Trying to bring this information out of the prosecution's expert is very risky because you do not know what he/she will say, which is breaks the golden rule of examination: don't ask a question, if you don't know the witness' answer. Putting on your own expert is very expensive, but I hear that David Armstrong guy is pretty good. Fish may not have had sufficient assets to obtain the services of a credible expert.

[bdcheung]

Edited by BOM to correct erroneous information.

[BaiHu]

Edited post

Thanks for the update-what a hard working media we have :p

[TCinVA]

I hope I live long enough to see the day when there is a presidential candidate who is asked by some media dimwit about this kind of situation and responds by saying that presidents and presidential candidates have no business making such a thing about them.

That will be a guy/gal I can respect.

[TGS]

I hope I live long enough to see the day when there is a presidential candidate who is asked by some media dimwit about this kind of situation and responds by saying that presidents and presidential candidates have no business making such a thing about them.

That will be a guy/gal I can respect.


Obviously, you'd be a racist by not getting involved.

Don't tell me you weren't you part of the "million hoodie march" last night, either.

:p

[David Armstrong]

from joshs:
Putting on your own expert is very expensive, but I hear that David Armstrong guy is pretty good.
And don't forget, relatively inexpensive!!:p

[Ed L]

It's not a question of being arrested or not arrested, it's that the prosecution was able to get the fact in evidence and it may have helped persuade some jurors to believe the prosecution's theory of the case.

Yes, but my specific question was whether was Fish arrested & tried because he used a 10mm w/hollowpoints as I have heard some people assert online, or was it because of the facts of the case? They prosecuted him because of the facts of the shooting that he shot an unarmed man multiple times at a time when the laws in AZ were less favorable to the defensive use of firearms.

My point is that if you are going to start worrying about how some prosecutor might try to color your use of effective firearms and ammo, like automatics and hollowpoints, you are going to wind up restricting your self to far less effective options--like lead round nosed loaded into a revolver. A savy defense attorney need only point out that modern automatics and modern hollowpoints are the choice of an overwhelming number of police agencies.


This isn't how you enter information into evidence. The only way to get the information above into evidence is putting the defendant on the stand, on cross examination of the prosecution's expert(s), or with your own expert(s). Each of these things is either very costly or problematic. Trying to bring this information out of the prosecution's expert is very risky because you do not know what he/she will say, which is breaks the golden rule of examination: don't ask a question, if you don't know the witness' answer. Putting on your own expert is very expensive, but I hear that David Armstrong guy is pretty good. Fish may not have had sufficient assets to obtain the services of a credible expert.

The point is that the prosecutions assertions about the 10mm automatic with hollowpoints should not have gone unchallenged by the defense, and it would be easy for the defense attorney to point out that the majority of police agencies in the US use hollowpoint ammo and that the 10mm with most factory ammo isn't much more powerful than the 40 S&W, which is the most popular police caliber in the US.

Likewise, in the Hickey case, if the prosecution raised the fact that the Glock that he used had no manual safety, trying to make Hickey appear negligent by carrying it, the defense can easily point out that the Glock is the most popular handgun among US Law Enforcement and one of the most popular with modern police forces and militaries worldwide--making the prosecution's argument look foolish. Further, the defense can point out that a number of other modern handgins carried by Police do not have a manual safety, nor did the revolvers that were carried in decades past. Thus an argument by the prosecution is turned around to make it look like the prosecution is clueless about firearms and undercut their credibility.

I agree there are all types of things that the prosecution could try to pull, and you as the knowledgeable trained gunowner (and your attorney) need to be ready to counter them.

If dealing with a member of this board the prosecution could point out that they attended dozens of training classes and were obviously obsessed with guns and just looking for an excuse to kill someone.

A comment like this might influence a jury member.

Does this mean that you avoid going to training classes because of the way it could be twisted around?

Hell, the prosecution could say that you had a concealled carry permit even though you did not engage in any dangerous activities, thus you were obviously looking for an excuse to shoot someone.

[Madnik]

"Trayvon Martin's Facebook pictures, as seen on his public profile (so no privacy is being infringed upon by my posting)."

Is that the correct Trayvon Martin?

[JodyH]

It's going to be a long hot summer prepare accordingly.

[David Armstrong]

from edl...
My point is that if you are going to start worrying about how some prosecutor might try to color your use of effective firearms and ammo, like automatics and hollowpoints, you are going to wind up restricting your self to far less effective options--like lead round nosed loaded into a revolver. A savy defense attorney need only point out that modern automatics and modern hollowpoints are the choice of an overwhelming number of police agencies.
The point actually should be that when given choices if one can choose an equally effective option that will not provide anything extra for the prosecution (or more likely the civil trial) to use against you, keep that possibility in mind. Options do not have to be far less effective, they can be as effective but less offensive. In your example, had Fish been carrying an automatic and hollowpoints that that were actually carried by a many LE agencies instead of a combo that had been rejected by most he might have been a bit better off. Again, it is rarely a single factor that determines things in court, it is a combination of factors.

[G60]

"Trayvon Martin's Facebook pictures, as seen on his public profile (so no privacy is being infringed upon by my posting)."

Is that the correct Trayvon Martin?

I do not believe so, and the post in question should be edited to reflect that.

From Massad Ayoob's post 'What we don't know:'

"Update: Turns out that the Trayvon Martin Facebook page mentioned here last night was the wrong Trayvon Martin; that has been deleted with my apologies, and thanks to those who flagged me to the error."

http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2012/03/23/george-zimmerman-and-trayvon-martin-what-we-dont-know/

[Madnik]

"I do not believe so, and the post in question should be edited to reflect that."

Agreed on both accounts.

[bdcheung]

I can't edit my post...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JDM]

I can't edit my post...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Done.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Yes, but my specific question was whether was Fish arrested & tried because he used a 10mm w/hollowpoints as I have heard some people assert online, or was it because of the facts of the case?

He was arrested because he gave a long, rambling, statement which contradicted itself and other witness's accounting of the little they were able to say they knew regarding the timeline of the events.

The 10mm...theater. Courtroom theater.

Effective...but theater.

[Wendell]

It's going to be a long hot summer prepare accordingly.

Do the Right Thing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-1s9MKDrmU)
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-1s9MKDrmU> :cool:

[G60]

Do the Right Thing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-1s9MKDrmU)
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-1s9MKDrmU> :cool:

All too fitting considering Spike Lee posted Zimmerman's home address on his Twitter account.

[Shellback]

And the truth starts to emerge... http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-civil-rights-punch

With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered, law enforcement authorities have revealed to the Orlando Sentinel.

That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say...

In his version of events, he had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind, the two exchanged words then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him.
Suspended for possession of marijuana. http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html

Dead dude has a gold grill, plenty of tattoos, is a gang member, drug dealer, 6'3" and 200lbs and is definitely not the innocent little 13 year old lil' kid that the media's tried to portray him as. Martin is 5'9" and 240lbs, husky if you will.

And now "mom" is trying to trademark his name to profit off of his death. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/trayvon-martin-trademarks-769123

Zimmerman initially told cops in a written statement that Martin went for his gun. http://gma.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-shooter-told-cops-teenager-went-gun-030349812--abc-news.html

[rsa-otc]

Dead dude has a gold grill, plenty of tattoos, is a gang member, drug dealer, 6'3" and 200lbs and is definitely not the innocent little 13 year old lil' kid that the media's tried to portray him as.


Where did you come across this information? I have yet to see this reported. I never did think the released pics were an actual portrayal of Martin currently. They were chosen because nothing recent makes him look so innocent as those.

From beginning Martin lawyers and the media has clouded the issue and are responsible for the hysteria that is going on right now. Not saying Zimmerman is an angel in all this either.

I wonder what kind of legal action Zimmerman can take against the Martin Lawyers for releasing the statement that they could clearly hear 2 shots with Martin begging for his life in between on tape. This has proven to be categorically false. In my mind to is the equivalent of liable and slander.

[TGS]

Where did you come across this information? I have yet to see this reported. I never did this the released pics were an actual portrayal of Martin currently. They were chose because nothing recent makes him look so innocent as those.

From beginning Martin lawyers and the media has clouded the issue and are responsible for the hysteria that is going on right now. Not saying Zimmerman is an angel in all this either.

I wonder what kind of legal action Zimmerman can take against the Martin Lawyers for releasing the statement that they could clearly hear 2 shots with Martin begging for his life in between on tape. This has proven to be categorically false. In my mind to is the equivalent of liable and slander.

He's probably assuming it from that article (http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/was-trayvon-martin-a-drug-dealer) that was written about photos on Martin's facebook and twitter....pictures of friends depicting gang signs, pictures of rolled blunts in his honor, and comments about how he swung at a bus driver a few days beforehand.

[Shellback]

Where did you come across this information? I have yet to see this reported.


He's probably assuming it from that article (http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/was-trayvon-martin-a-drug-dealer) that was written about photos on Martin's facebook and twitter....pictures of friends depicting gang signs, pictures of rolled blunts in his honor, and comments about how he swung at a bus driver a few days beforehand.

TGS got it right along with several other articles that are now out there. Check this link (http://source1news.com/news-blog/index.php/2012/03/26/one-sided-reporting-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-tragedy-the-tale-of-the-bias-photos/) for some regular, smiling up to date photos of Zimmerman instead of the mugshot looking one that's been circulating. The way they've portrayed him and the whole incident in the media is BS. Is Zimmerman a good dude? I don't know. Did he make some mistakes that night? Absolutely. But most people have been MMQB'ing an incident from media reports the same way people do OIS incidents and yet the same standard doesn't apply, wait for the facts.

ETA - Here's some real history on Martin. Although it may not pertain to the events on the night the kid was far from an angel as depicted in the media with multiple suspensions, drugs, stolen jewelry, tagging, etc. http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html#storylink=cpy

[Tamara]

Dead dude has a gold grill, plenty of tattoos, is a gang member, drug dealer, 6'3" and 200lbs and is definitely not the innocent little 13 year old lil' kid that the media's tried to portray him as. Martin is 5'9" and 240lbs, husky if you will.

Better tell the coroner, since he measured him at 6' and 160#.

Now, a 6' athletic kid should have no trouble laying out the neighborhood busybody (seriously, Zimmerman placed more 911 calls in any given week for meaningless BS than I've placed since the inception of the 911 program for honest emergencies. Interpret that how you want, but I know a strange ranger when I smell one,) but I have no idea why Martin then straddled him and was banging his head on the pavement.

Did he do it out of pure rage at something Zimmerman had said or done? Or did Zimmerman, decked by a punk kid, start fumbling in his pocket for his pistol, and then Martin jumped on him to struggle for the gun? Do you know? I don't.

Zimmerman was getting his ass beat and shot Martin. That we know. There are only two people, however, who know how the fight started and how and when the gun came into play. One is dead, and the other's not posting on this board.

[LittleLebowski]

Is there meaningful data backing the claim of "drug dealer" other than the discovery of a Baggie with some remnants of weed in it? Most of the pics circulating around the internets are of the wrong Trayvon.

[bdcheung]

...btw, what are the odds that there are two people out there with the name "Trayvon Martin"?

[LittleLebowski]

...btw, what are the odds that there are two people out there with the name "Trayvon Martin"?

The real Trayvon's FB page.

https://www.facebook.com/people/Trayvon-Slimm-Martin/1353307542

[rsa-otc]

I read another report that Martin had previously punched a bus driver. All of that has little legal bearing on the case at hand, that much I agree with Martin's side about. It's just hypocritical of them to paint Martin as a squeaky clean kid, fan the flame of public opinion claiming that is why we should hang Zimmerman and then claim that any information to counters that image is not relevant.

[Savage Hands]

Is there meaningful data backing the claim of "drug dealer" other than the discovery of a Baggie with some remnants of weed in it? Most of the pics circulating around the internets are of the wrong Trayvon.

The right Trayvon:

http://i.imgur.com/qMh1X.jpg


Plant?

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1353307542&sk=friends&v=friends#!/permalink.php?story_fbid=2737863529786&id=1353307542

[Shellback]

Better tell the coroner, since he measured him at 6' and 160#.
Do you have a link to that or a copy? Sincere question.

Honestly I don't really care all that much and many reports have claimed what I did. My point was to show the angel that's been portrayed is far from the case. The pendulum swings both ways.

Is there meaningful data backing the claim of "drug dealer" other than the discovery of a Baggie with some remnants of weed in it? Most of the pics circulating around the internets are of the wrong Trayvon.
Shenaniguns posted what I was referring to. There are various "tweets" indicating the same thing.

I read another report that Martin had previously punched a bus driver. All of that has little legal bearing on the case at hand, that much I agree with Martin's side about. It's just hypocritical of them to paint Martin as a squeaky clean kid, fan the flame of public opinion claiming that is why we should hang Zimmerman and then claim that any information to counters that image is not relevant.
Same point of view as mine.

[TGS]

It's just hypocritical of them to paint Martin as a squeaky clean kid, fan the flame of public opinion claiming that is why we should hang Zimmerman and then claim that any information to counters that image is not relevant.

Not only that, but I think it's despicable that elected officials around the country are jumping on the racism bandwagon. Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia made a public statement that it was nothing more than an assassination.

Really? What ever happened to fair and impartial? If Zimmerman wanted to, I think he'd have a good shot at suing the elected officials for character degradation....but, I imagine at this point he's just trying to avoid any fallout whatsoever and move to a peaceful, remote, serene piece of Earth off the grid.

[rsa-otc]

I imagine at this point he's just trying to avoid any fallout whatsoever and move to a peaceful, remote, serene piece of Earth off the grid.

Amen dude.

[BaiHu]

I'd like to hear all of your thoughts on Zimmerman only firing one shot and what you think that means. I've been having a discussion with a mixed bunch of friends-TGS has met 2 of them and I have my own opinions of the one shot, but I'm curious if they line up with all of yours w/o divulging my thoughts first.

[Savage Hands]

I'd like to hear all of your thoughts on Zimmerman only firing one shot and what you think that means. I've been having a discussion with a mixed bunch of friends-TGS has met 2 of them and I have my own opinions of the one shot, but I'm curious if they line up with all of yours w/o divulging my thoughts first.


Ayoob for some reason thinks he had a malfunction as the mag was full and didn't feed any rounds, maybe it was a fail to feed due to something contacting the slide?

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Just think how simple this all would have been if the world was like people want it to be on most internet gun forums.

Sigh...

[BaiHu]

Ayoob for some reason thinks he had a malfunction as the mag was full and didn't feed any rounds, maybe it was a fail to feed due to something contacting the slide?

I've been pretty hung up on this one shot and I think the possibilities are seemingly limited to 3:

1) Some malfunction.
2) He collapsed on Martin and his pistol after the first shot. Indicating that it was a single heart shot at extremely close range.
3) Zimmerman didn't want to shoot and paused after the first shot due to incredulity of the act he had just engaged in.

Maybe I misunderstood the PPIH (personal protection in home) course I took, but I seem to recall that it was shoot until the threat can no longer continue the attack. Feel free to correct me.

[BaiHu]

Just think how simple this all would have been if the world was like people want it to be on most internet gun forums.

Sigh...

LOL! "If Woody had gone straight to the police, none of this ever would have happened!"

[JDM]

I've been pretty hung up on this one shot and I think the possibilities are seemingly limited to 3:

1) Some malfunction.
2) He collapsed on Martin and his pistol after the first shot. Indicating that it was a single heart shot at extremely close range.
3) Zimmerman didn't want to shoot and paused after the first shot due to incredulity of the act he had just engaged in.

Maybe I misunderstood the PPIH (personal protection in home) course I took, but I seem to recall that it was shoot until the threat can no longer continue the attack. Feel free to correct me.

Maybe he ceased to be a threat after 1 shot?

[BaiHu]

Maybe he ceased to be a threat after 1 shot?

That was my thought/implication when I posit he might have fallen on Zimmerman and his gun. Wait a minute.....you're trying to trick the intertubz-nothing but a bazooka can shoot a guy dead in one shot :p

[TGS]

He was using a Kel Tec.

It probably just broke after the first shot.


(Being that I owned a PF9 at one point, I wouldn't be surprised)

[JConn]

If the reports that martin was on top of zimmerman beating him are true, perhaps due to confined space the gun did not have room to cycle. I'm trying to figure out how that would happen. That's the only way he fires a shot and still has a full mag.

[Tamara]

Ayoob for some reason thinks he had a malfunction as the mag was full and didn't feed any rounds, maybe it was a fail to feed due to something contacting the slide?

Huh.

I wonder what it would have looked like if Martin had decked the guy and started to turn away, figuring he'd taught the guy a lesson, and when Zimmerman landed on his butt with a bloody nose, he hauled out his Kel-Tec and said "FREEZE!" or "You shouldn't have done that!" or "Make my day!" so then Martin (who, remember, had no duty to retreat, either, depending on who laid hands on who first) grabbed for the gun and started pounding Zimmerman's head against the concrete in an attempt to not get shot. During the struggle, the gun goes off and hits Martin, but he's got his hand wrapped around the little pistol's slide, so it doesn't cycle...

If that's what had happened, I wonder what the evidence would look like?


Just think how simple this all would have been if the world was like people want it to be on most internet gun forums.

Sigh.

Phhhttt! You only have to worry about press hysteria and crusading prosecutors if you live in antigun places like New Jersey! If you live in a pro-gun state like Florida, as long as it's a Clean Shoot©®™ you can just skip into the sunset on your way to being given the key to the city.

[Tamara]

Do you have a link to that or a copy? Sincere question.

My bad, it was the incident report: http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin%20Lakes%20Shooting%20Initial%20Report.pdf

[rsa-otc]

I have seen it reported in several places that the magazine was full and that one shot was fired. That means there was either a malfunction or something prevented the slide from reciprocating. Zimmerman is in no ways as knowledgeable as the folks here to immediately tap & rack. He probably got up and stood there looking at Martin frozen in disbelief at what just happened.

Now as to why the slide failed to do it's normal thing. The following is speculation on my part based on reports to this point.

1. Gun malfunctioned, possible but unlikely.

2. Martin was reported straddling Zimmerman beating his head in the ground. It is possible that while straddling Zimmerman's waist either Martin felt the gun or the gun came into view and Martin went for it, Zimmerman got there before him and Martin had his hands around the gun preventing the slide from functioning while Zimmerman fired.

3. Zimmerman was getting his clock cleaned, Zimmerman went for the gun and Martin grabbed at it at and prevented the slide from functioning as Zimmerman fired.

2 & 3 would jive with Zimmerman's reported statement that Martin went for Zimmerman's gun.

4. Zimmerman was getting his clock cleaned drew and fired the gun. The close proximity of both bodies prevented the slide form fully functioning.

As far as one shot getting the job done. It happens. Not with any reliability but it happens.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Phhhttt! You only have to worry about press hysteria and crusading prosecutors if you live in antigun places like New Jersey! If you live in a pro-gun state like Florida, as long as it's a Clean Shoot©®™ you can just skip into the sunset on your way to being given the key to the city.

Once upon a time when I still posted on defensivecarry.com, the topic was lawful use of force.

I chimed in, gave my $0.02 on the subject and was told by another poster, obviously more informed than I am on this issue, "Not in Florida!"

Yeah...

OK...

:rolleyes:

[JDM]

My bad, it was the incident report: http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin%20Lakes%20Shooting%20Initial%20Report.pdf

Is it possible the report was compiled using the numbers from Martins DL? A friend of mine had a drivers license in high school that said he weighed 300 pounds, when he weighed about 150. He did it as a joke, and to prove a point about the MVD being as inept a group of people as possible.

[rsa-otc]

My bad, it was the incident report: http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin%20Lakes%20Shooting%20Initial%20Report.pdf

Zimmerman was transported back to the station to be interviewed by an investigator, there are multiple wittinesses. On the face of it, It doesn't look like the police glossed this over to me. I would love to read the wittiness statements as well as a transcript of Zimmerman's interview. I am surprised that they didn't keep the gun as evidence as has been reported.

[TCz]

Is it possible that the report was using the numbers from Martins DL? A friend of mine had a drivers license in high school that said he weighed 300 pounds, when he weighed about 150. He did it as a joke, and to prove a point about the MVD being as inept a group of people as possible.

Possible, but whoever filled out the form did not enter Martin's DL number, or other info from the DL. This would suggest that the DL was not present or not used for the form. It is also possible that such info was removed before putting it on the internet, but again, other information (such as addresses) is blacked out, whereas the DL# area is simply blank.

Hmm, the report also has Zimmerman classified as white.

[Tamara]

A friend of mine had a drivers license in high school that said he weighed 300 pounds, when he weighed about 150. He did it as a joke...

I have looked at a LOT of driver's licenses. I can honestly say that, while I have seen lots of them where the "Height" field was obviously a little, um, fanciful, I have never seen a single solitary male's driver's license that listed his height as shorter than he actually was. I can't tell you how many times I've had a good look down onto the crown of a head that the piece of plastic in my hand attested should have been an inch above mine.

[Chris Rhines]

I have looked at a LOT of driver's licenses. I can honestly say that, while I have seen lots of them where the "Height" field was obviously a little, um, fanciful, I have never seen a single solitary male's driver's license that listed his height as shorter than he actually was. I can't tell you how many times I've had a good look down onto the crown of a head that the piece of plastic in my hand attested should have been an inch above mine.This happens a lot with students. For most of high school and college, my DL had my height as 5'-8" - my height when I got my learners permit at 15. By my freshman year of college, I was closing in on 6'0". DL was still the same.

-C

[Tamara]

This happens a lot with students. For most of high school and college, my DL had my height as 5'-8" - my height when I got my learners permit at 15. By my freshman year of college, I was closing in on 6'0". DL was still the same.
Heh. Obviously all the driver's licenses I looked at were for people >18 years old. :o

'Course, TCz's point that it may not have been from his D/L at all is also interesting.

Hmm, the report also has Zimmerman classified as white.
Just looking at him, I would too. What's it say on his D/L, I wonder?

[Wendell]

New picture emerges of Trayvon Martin (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120504/Trayvon-Martin-case-He-suspended-times-caught-burglary-tool.html)
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120504/Trayvon-Martin-case-He-suspended-times-caught-burglary-tool.html>

[bdcheung]

I take everything published by the Daily Fail with a generous dose of salt.

[Tamara]

New picture emerges of Trayvon Martin (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120504/Trayvon-Martin-case-He-suspended-times-caught-burglary-tool.html)
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120504/Trayvon-Martin-case-He-suspended-times-caught-burglary-tool.html>

That's mostly a rehash of the stuff that the Miami Herald had already released. I'm unimpressed by the scribbling "WTF" on a door and the empty dope baggy. That makes him no worse than about two thirds of everybody I knew in high school, not the warlord of the Eight Trey Gangsta Crips.

The screwdriver and jewelry he claimed sumdood put in his backpack is troubling, but the principal didn't seem to do the veracity of that claim any services by not calling the heat right then.

Look, everybody here carries a gun, and is automatically putting themselves in Zimmerman's shoes. I promise you that if a jury is empaneled, you could turn the jury box upside down and shake it and not a single toter's permit will fall out. They are not going to be looking at it through the same eyes you are.

I will bet a crisp twenty right now that even as I type this, Zimmerman wishes he never got out of that truck in the first place. He that hath ears, let him hear.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

I will bet a crisp twenty right now that even as I type this, Zimmerman wishes he never got out of that truck in the first place. He that hath ears, let him hear.

Them that hath ears and eyes, have heard and seen, and will not get out of the truck when it's their turn.

Them that wanna tie their self image to being a sheep-dog, heedless of the consequences...face-palm. Whatever.

[TCz]

Heh. Obviously all the driver's licenses I looked at were for people >18 years old. :o

'Course, TCz's point that it may not have been from his D/L at all is also interesting.

Just looking at him, I would too. What's it say on his D/L, I wonder?

I would have classified him as hispanic just from the picture myself... I brought it up simply because of the confusion over every single detail of this case. Even something as simple as the subject's race was difficult to decipher, not to mention misreported several times. I even found one report that said he was half-black, half-hispanic.

[bdcheung]

"hispanic" is not a race.

it's an ethnicity.

/says the person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States_Census

[TCz]

It seems I have much to learn about what the words "race" and "ethinicity" mean. Off I go to Google...

[JHC]

Huh.

I wonder what it would have looked like if Martin had decked the guy and started to turn away, figuring he'd taught the guy a lesson, and when Zimmerman landed on his butt with a bloody nose, he hauled out his Kel-Tec and said "FREEZE!" or "You shouldn't have done that!" or "Make my day!" so then Martin (who, remember, had no duty to retreat, either, depending on who laid hands on who first) grabbed for the gun and started pounding Zimmerman's head against the concrete in an attempt to not get shot. During the struggle, the gun goes off and hits Martin, but he's got his hand wrapped around the little pistol's slide, so it doesn't cycle...

If that's what had happened, I wonder what the evidence would look like?



Phhhttt! You only have to worry about press hysteria and crusading prosecutors if you live in antigun places like New Jersey! If you live in a pro-gun state like Florida, as long as it's a Clean Shoot©®™ you can just skip into the sunset on your way to being given the key to the city.

When the dead guy wasn't armed, or not standing over your bed at 2:00AM it's probably never a slam dunk clean shoot anywhere. No subsitute for judgement. It's fundamental.

[bdcheung]

It seems I have much to learn about what the words "race" and "ethinicity" mean. Off I go to Google...

Frankly I find the definitions pedantic, but it's possible I'm being insensitive about this.

I think we're all going to end up some shade of khaki in 50 years. Why even bother measuring race and ethnicity. People talk about "eliminating the racial divide" but insist on measuring the racial divide.

</tangent>

[JHC]

I just heard the mystery eyewitness on a radio broadcast. He sounds like a pretty strong witness for Zimmerman. JodyH was prescient.

[Tamara]

I just heard the mystery eyewitness on a radio broadcast. He sounds like a pretty strong witness for Zimmerman. JodyH was prescient.

If Zimmerman had stayed in his truck, he wouldn't have needed a witness and nobody would have needed to be prescient. Just sayin'.

[dbm]

Zimmerman says that he lost track of Martin and was returning to his vehicle. Martin then made an appearance and initiated the confrontation.

While it might have been very advisable to heed the 911 operators advice to stay in the truck, Zimmerman was not legally bound to do so and had every right to surveil the "suspicious" intruder.

[Tamara]

While it might have been very advisable to heed the 911 operators advice to stay in the truck, Zimmerman was not legally bound to do so and had every right to surveil the "suspicious" intruder.

Correct. Zimmerman had every legal right to "surveil" the "suspicious intruder" (incidentally, it was Zimmerman who was "suspicious"; the intruder was "suspect". *grammarrulerontheknuckleswhack!*) Zimmerman had every legal right in the state of Florida to be a moron. And now, no matter how you want to slice it, his life is WRECKED.

Do you think it was worth it?

[dbm]

I'm sure Zimmerman isn't to happy about it at this point and I don't think Martin would agree that it was worth it either. There are two partners to a tango.

And, don't forget about the part where Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle and Martin initiated the up close confrontation.

[LHS]

And, don't forget about the part where Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle and Martin initiated the up close confrontation.

So Zimmerman says. We will probably never know how the confrontation began/escalated.

[dbm]

So Zimmerman says. We will probably never know how the confrontation began/escalated.

I think that eventually we will.

[Tamara]

And, don't forget about the part where Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle and Martin initiated the up close confrontation.

I haven't.

Even if everything happened EXACTLY AS ZIMMERMAN CLAIMED, he got himself into a thoroughly avoidable confrontation which resulted in killing a man and wrecking his own life for nothing.

[dbm]

Correct. Zimmerman had every legal right to "surveil" the "suspicious intruder" (incidentally, it was Zimmerman who was "suspicious"; the intruder was "suspect". *grammarrulerontheknuckleswhack!*) Zimmerman had every legal right in the state of Florida to be a moron. And now, no matter how you want to slice it, his life is WRECKED.

Do you think it was worth it?


Never did find much worthiness in pointing out grammatical errors during a debate. However, maybe my grammar is not that far out of whack. I was trying to define an intruder who was evoking suspicious behavior.

[Tamara]

I think that eventually we will.

Yeah? How's that gonna happen? There's a crucial couple minutes missing from every 911 tape and eyewitness report we have, and of the two people who were there for those couple minutes, one is dead.

We have eyewitness testimony from one participant, and I don't have to tell you (I hope) just how unreliable (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?3615-Study-Holding-a-gun-makes-you-think-others-are-too&p=61353&viewfull=1#post61353) eyewitness testimony is.

They say there's three sides to every story: His, mine, and the truth. We'll only ever know one of them in this case.

[Tamara]

Never did find much worthiness in pointing out grammatical errors during a debate. However, maybe my grammar is not that far out of whack. I was trying to define an intruder who was evoking suspicious behavior.

That's why I put it in a parenthetical aside.

Martin's behavior was allegedly suspect. Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin's suspect behavior.

/derail

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled intertubes debate.

[JHC]

If Zimmerman had stayed in his truck, he wouldn't have needed a witness and nobody would have needed to be prescient. Just sayin'.

+1 no doubt. Ever see the Wayan bro's do the Reginald Denny safety tip skit? "STAY IN YOUR CAR!"

[rsa-otc]

It is now being REPORTED that the investigator in Martin shooting wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter but was told not to by the state attorney's office.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-investigator-wanted-charge-george-zimmerman-manslaughter/story?id=16011674

[NickA]

This is basically a recap story, but the first one I've seen that uses a current image of Martin and something other than the mug shot of Zimmerman :
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/27/justice/florida-teen-shooting-witnesses/index.html?hpt=hp_c1


Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[JHC]

John Lott's take on the matter so far: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/294609/it-s-not-about-stand-your-ground-john-r-lott-jr

It’s Not About Stand Your Ground

By John R. Lott Jr.
March 28, 2012 4:00 A.M. President Obama, Jesse Jackson, and others have chosen to personalize the shooting of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla., highlighting the racial issues by expressing concern for people who look like they do or live where “blacks are under attack.” Many conservatives and liberals have also already concluded that the shooter committed a crime. All of these reactions are premature.

In response to the shooting, Florida governor Rick Scott has set up a commission to review the state’s “Stand Your Ground” law. Gun-control organizations, including the Brady Campaign, have gone beyond this and even more drastically called for the end of right-to-carry laws.

But such outrage should be restrained until we have all of the facts. Zimmerman’s call to the police, which has been heard over and over again, does not appear to tell the whole story. There is other information that appears to back up the shooter’s account. That evidence, rather than racism, might well be the reason that police chose not to arrest the shooter. Fox 35 in Orlando spoke to one eyewitness, identified as “John,” the day after the shooting. He explained: “The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: ‘Help, help’ . . . and I told him to stop and I was calling 9-1-1.”

The witness further indicated that it was the guy on top who was doing the hitting, and that the shot occurred while that attack was taking place. The man who shot Martin, George Zimmerman, was the man in the red jacket. The police report corroborates the witness’s account: “While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head.” Zimmerman told the police, “I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me.”

Zimmerman and his neighbors seem to have had reason for forming a neighborhood-watch group: During the past year, the Miami Herald reports, eight burglaries, nine thefts, and one shooting occurred in their gated community. And Zimmerman had even caught at least one thief himself.

Prior to the spread of “Stand Your Ground” and “Castle Doctrine” laws, citizens who wanted to defend themselves from a criminal had to retreat as far as possible and then announce to the criminal that they were going to shoot. But obvious problems arise: Forcing a victim to take time to retreat can put their life in jeopardy, and a prosecutor might argue that a victim didn’t retreat sufficiently. There have been many cases where victims have been chased and knocked down a couple of times before firing in self-defense, and yet prosecutors claimed that the victim still could have done more to retreat before firing their gun.

The Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine laws replaced the original requirement to retreat to a “reasonable person’s” standard, instead stating that lethal force is justified when a reasonable person would believe that a criminal intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death. These laws do not protect those who shoot fleeing criminals in the back, provoke attacks, or use lethal force in the absence of a threat to life or limb.

The difference between the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws is where they apply: The Castle Doctrine applies in a person’s home, and Stand Your Ground extends the right to any place the defender has a right to have a gun. Forty-one states now have these laws in some form, though most have adopted them in the last decade, and the statutes haven’t caused any problems at all. By case law, six other states protect victims from having to retreat before using deadly force.

Allowing victims to defend themselves not only protects the lives of victims who come under attack, but deters criminals from attacking to begin with. I have myself conducted the only published refereed academic study on these laws, and I found that states adopting Castle Doctrine laws reduced murder rates by 9 percent and overall violent crime by 8 percent.

But Martin’s shooting has raised a lot of confusion over what the Florida law would allow. Irrespective of the Stand Your Ground law, Zimmerman did indeed have the right to investigate a strange person in his neighborhood. And when, before any confrontation, Zimmerman informed the police operator that he was following Martin, the operator’s advice that “we don’t need you to do that” was suggestive, not compulsory. By itself, investigating someone who is a stranger in the neighborhood does not imply a provocation. In addition, Zimmerman claims that Martin attacked him from behind.

If it turns out that the police report and witness are wrong, and Zimmerman was the aggressor, he certainly deserves to be punished. But if Zimmerman was attacked, pummeled, and bloodied by Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman had justification to shoot in self-defense. So far it looks as if the police made the right decision.

— John R. Lott Jr. is the author of the third edition of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2010).

[Long tom coffin]

It is now being REPORTED that the investigator in Martin shooting wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter but was told not to by the state attorney's office.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-investigator-wanted-charge-george-zimmerman-manslaughter/story?id=16011674

That's actually been out for a week or so now. Maybe even longer, I can't remember. I just saw it on yahoo yesterday and I was actually surprised that it took the MSM this long to pick up on it.

[dbm]

John Lott's take on the matter so far: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/294609/it-s-not-about-stand-your-ground-john-r-lott-jr

It’s Not About Stand Your Ground

By John R. Lott Jr.
March 28, 2012 4:00 A.M. President Obama, Jesse Jackson, and others have chosen to personalize the shooting of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla., highlighting the racial issues by expressing concern for people who look like they do or live where “blacks are under attack.” Many conservatives and liberals have also already concluded that the shooter committed a crime. All of these reactions are premature.

In response to the shooting, Florida governor Rick Scott has set up a commission to review the state’s “Stand Your Ground” law. Gun-control organizations, including the Brady Campaign, have gone beyond this and even more drastically called for the end of right-to-carry laws.

But such outrage should be restrained until we have all of the facts. Zimmerman’s call to the police, which has been heard over and over again, does not appear to tell the whole story. There is other information that appears to back up the shooter’s account. That evidence, rather than racism, might well be the reason that police chose not to arrest the shooter. Fox 35 in Orlando spoke to one eyewitness, identified as “John,” the day after the shooting. He explained: “The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: ‘Help, help’ . . . and I told him to stop and I was calling 9-1-1.”

The witness further indicated that it was the guy on top who was doing the hitting, and that the shot occurred while that attack was taking place. The man who shot Martin, George Zimmerman, was the man in the red jacket. The police report corroborates the witness’s account: “While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head.” Zimmerman told the police, “I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me.”

Zimmerman and his neighbors seem to have had reason for forming a neighborhood-watch group: During the past year, the Miami Herald reports, eight burglaries, nine thefts, and one shooting occurred in their gated community. And Zimmerman had even caught at least one thief himself.

Prior to the spread of “Stand Your Ground” and “Castle Doctrine” laws, citizens who wanted to defend themselves from a criminal had to retreat as far as possible and then announce to the criminal that they were going to shoot. But obvious problems arise: Forcing a victim to take time to retreat can put their life in jeopardy, and a prosecutor might argue that a victim didn’t retreat sufficiently. There have been many cases where victims have been chased and knocked down a couple of times before firing in self-defense, and yet prosecutors claimed that the victim still could have done more to retreat before firing their gun.

The Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine laws replaced the original requirement to retreat to a “reasonable person’s” standard, instead stating that lethal force is justified when a reasonable person would believe that a criminal intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death. These laws do not protect those who shoot fleeing criminals in the back, provoke attacks, or use lethal force in the absence of a threat to life or limb.

The difference between the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws is where they apply: The Castle Doctrine applies in a person’s home, and Stand Your Ground extends the right to any place the defender has a right to have a gun. Forty-one states now have these laws in some form, though most have adopted them in the last decade, and the statutes haven’t caused any problems at all. By case law, six other states protect victims from having to retreat before using deadly force.

Allowing victims to defend themselves not only protects the lives of victims who come under attack, but deters criminals from attacking to begin with. I have myself conducted the only published refereed academic study on these laws, and I found that states adopting Castle Doctrine laws reduced murder rates by 9 percent and overall violent crime by 8 percent.

But Martin’s shooting has raised a lot of confusion over what the Florida law would allow. Irrespective of the Stand Your Ground law, Zimmerman did indeed have the right to investigate a strange person in his neighborhood. And when, before any confrontation, Zimmerman informed the police operator that he was following Martin, the operator’s advice that “we don’t need you to do that” was suggestive, not compulsory. By itself, investigating someone who is a stranger in the neighborhood does not imply a provocation. In addition, Zimmerman claims that Martin attacked him from behind.

If it turns out that the police report and witness are wrong, and Zimmerman was the aggressor, he certainly deserves to be punished. But if Zimmerman was attacked, pummeled, and bloodied by Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman had justification to shoot in self-defense. So far it looks as if the police made the right decision.

— John R. Lott Jr. is the author of the third edition of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2010).

Kinda my whole point. 2nd Amendment/gun rights supporters should provide support to Zimmerman - at this point at least? At this point, the evidence available tends to support the shooter and not the recipient of the bullet. So many, beginning with the President and other black leaders and mainstream news media, immediately jumped on the side of the young innocent looking black kid who was shot by the ugly mean white guy. A real rush to judgement again and this time all mostly for political purposes. If developing evidence supports another conclusion, then that is the side all should be on.

And, as 2nd Amendment supporters and gun enthusiasts, we do not need to support the tightening of gun laws. In the UK, a person cannot legally carry a stick/club while jogging to ward off attacking dogs (much less muggers).

[Mitchell, Esq.]

"Prior to the spread of “Stand Your Ground” and “Castle Doctrine” laws, citizens who wanted to defend themselves from a criminal had to retreat as far as possible and then announce to the criminal that they were going to shoot. "

Sigh.

I'm stunned. I do not know how to respond to this kind of stupidity. I just truly do not understand how to respond or comment on this kind of absolute 50 G-Ton thermonuclear airburst stupid.

John Lott should know better. He really should.

I weep for our side if that is the level of understanding coming from experts.

John Lott has made my AR-15 cry - and it is NOT NICE to make my AR-15 cry.

[JeffJ]

Pure speculation here : John Lott does know better - but that it is a measured response to the rhetoric that the stand your ground laws allow vigilantes to blast away at will without fear of legal action, which is how the laws are being portrayed by the hoodie wearing legislators and protestors right now.

You're a lawyer, don't start acting like facts matter

[TR675]

"Prior to the spread of “Stand Your Ground” and “Castle Doctrine” laws, citizens who wanted to defend themselves from a criminal had to retreat as far as possible and then announce to the criminal that they were going to shoot. "

I was put off by this too. But his larger point - that so far no evidence points to Zimmerman doing anything illegal, and that the evidence we do have tends to support both his story and his justification for shooting Martin - is well taken.

I was on the "hang Zimmerman" bandwagon early on but am reevaluating. Zimmerman's main issue here was that he looked for trouble and found it. Stupid but not illegal.

Looking at this from the viewpoint of an attorney, one of the most troubling aspects about this case to me is the massive and near-unanimous rush to judgment, trial-by-media firestorm, and possible politically motivated prosecution of someone who may not have done anything illegal.*

*I am fully aware and agree that the loss of a 17 year old's life is troubling. But that happened and nobody can fix it, as opposed to railroading Zimmerman.

[bdcheung]

*rolleyes*


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ougHdwR8PhI#!

[Shellback]

Did he add the sunglasses for the Unabomber effect? :cool:

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Pure speculation here : John Lott does know better - but that it is a measured response to the rhetoric that the stand your ground laws allow vigilantes to blast away at will without fear of legal action, which is how the laws are being portrayed by the hoodie wearing legislators and protestors right now.

You're a lawyer, don't start acting like facts matter


Ouch. Right into the bulls-eye!

[Tamara]

I was on the "hang Zimmerman" bandwagon early on but am reevaluating. Zimmerman's main issue here was that he looked for trouble and found it. Stupid but not illegal.

What is killing me is there is a giant "Hang Zimmerman" bandwagon, a similarly huge "Zimmerman Righteously Defended Himself Against That Gang Banger" bandwagon, and meanwhile, down here in this bitty little Radio Flyer labeled "Zimmerman Was Apparently Legally On Solid Ground Against Criminal Charges Based On What I've Seen But I Don't Know Because I'm Not On The Grand Jury And His Conduct Before The Fatal Altercation Makes Me Wonder How I'd Vote In A Civil Case But Can't We Let The Justice System Breathe?", I've got enough room to lean back and stretch my legs, because it's emptier than a BBQ rib joint in Riyadh.

[BaiHu]

"Prior to the spread of “Stand Your Ground” and “Castle Doctrine” laws, citizens who wanted to defend themselves from a criminal had to retreat as far as possible and then announce to the criminal that they were going to shoot. "

Sigh.

I'm stunned. I do not know how to respond to this kind of stupidity. I just truly do not understand how to respond or comment on this kind of absolute 50 G-Ton thermonuclear airburst stupid.

John Lott should know better. He really should.

I weep for our side if that is the level of understanding coming from experts.

John Lott has made my AR-15 cry - and it is NOT NICE to make my AR-15 cry.

Not being a lawyer, or as Tam's famous acronym touts IANAL, I'd be curious to hear your distinctions, b/c I don't know. This is not a challenge, this is a request for understanding, so please take this as an opportunity to explain to me my lack of understanding.

[JeffJ]

What is killing me is there is a giant "Hang Zimmerman" bandwagon, a similarly huge "Zimmerman Righteously Defended Himself Against That Gang Banger" bandwagon, and meanwhile, down here in this bitty little Radio Flyer labeled "Zimmerman Was Apparently Legally On Solid Ground Against Criminal Charges Based On What I've Seen But I Don't Know Because I'm Not On The Grand Jury And His Conduct Before The Fatal Altercation Makes Me Wonder How I'd Vote In A Civil Case But Can't We Let The Justice System Breathe?", I've got enough room to lean back and stretch my legs, because it's emptier than a BBQ rib joint in Riyadh.

That's a lot to put on a Radio Flyer - what size font?

[David Armstrong]

I'd like to hear all of your thoughts on Zimmerman only firing one shot and what you think that means. I've been having a discussion with a mixed bunch of friends-TGS has met 2 of them and I have my own opinions of the one shot, but I'm curious if they line up with all of yours w/o divulging my thoughts first.
While the local steely-eyed dealers of death all know that you always double-tap the BG at a minimum, lots of folks tend to shoot one round, then wait to see what it has done before shooting again. Doesn't explain the full mag, but Zimmerman might not have even known there was a problem.

[TR675]

What is killing me is there is a giant "Hang Zimmerman" bandwagon, a similarly huge "Zimmerman Righteously Defended Himself Against That Gang Banger" bandwagon, and meanwhile, down here in this bitty little Radio Flyer labeled "Zimmerman Was Apparently Legally On Solid Ground Against Criminal Charges Based On What I've Seen But I Don't Know Because I'm Not On The Grand Jury And His Conduct Before The Fatal Altercation Makes Me Wonder How I'd Vote In A Civil Case But Can't We Let The Justice System Breathe?", I've got enough room to lean back and stretch my legs, because it's emptier than a BBQ rib joint in Riyadh.

No, I'm with you. I'm embarrassed that I was on any other wagon to begin with, because I know better.

Nobody has all the facts. We don't have all the evidence. All I know for sure is that up to the point Zimmerman got out of his truck Martin hadn't done anything to deserve the death penalty, as of right now Zimmerman is wishing like hell he'd just let the cops handle things, and that we as people interested in self-defense can learn a lot from this case about media spin and bias, racial politics, and the massive amount of trouble that can come attached to even a legally-justified shooting like a tick to a hound.

[TR675]

Not being a lawyer, or as Tam's famous acronym touts IANAL, I'd be curious to hear your distinctions, b/c I don't know. This is not a challenge, this is a request for understanding, so please take this as an opportunity to explain to me my lack of understanding.

Short answer is that in "duty to retreat" jurisdictions you generally only have to retreat in a public place if you can do so in complete safety. There's actually a lot of leeway there - think about what "complete safety" means.

To my knowledge there has never been a requirement anywhere that you announce your intent to defend yourself. Saying "Stay back or I'll shoot!" may or may not be helpful to your case depending on the circumstances but you aren't required to say anything at all.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Not being a lawyer, or as Tam's famous acronym touts IANAL, I'd be curious to hear your distinctions, b/c I don't know. This is not a challenge, this is a request for understanding, so please take this as an opportunity to explain to me my lack of understanding.

Here's my take on the rule of retreat from my SD & The Law presentation:

Preclusion/Retreat:
•In some states you must be precluded from escaping the situation before using force.
•This is the infamous rule of retreat.
•It does not require you to get shot in the back.
•This rule requires a defendant to retreat instead of using deadly physical force whenever two conditions are met:
•1) a completely safe retreat is in fact available;
•and
•2) it is known to the actor that they can avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force by making that completely safe retreat.
•(language slightly changed, CT jury instructions, www.jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/Part2/2.8-3.htm)

Stop panicking! This isn’t a big deal…
•Usually lethal force situations happen when:
•a) completely safe retreat isn't possible because most lethal force situations happen suddenly from ambush
•&
•b) most people are scared shitless when they have to use lethal force, and don't know their own name, let alone that they can run.
•If someone didn't start the fight, and can't escape it in the 1/4 second warning they get before it's on, don't worry about it.
•If you can see it coming, know you can just leave and don't leave, or leave your house to go out to meet the threat when you have the option of staying inside your dwelling (safely behind hard cover, with a shotgun, 911 on the phone and cold drink/hot coffee on hand...) this applies to you and you should start worrying.

Case law – Complete safety:
•The statute requires both that the retreat was completely safe and available and that the defendant knew of it. Complete safety without any injury whatsoever to him or other people.
•“Self-defense focuses on the person claiming self-defense. It focuses on what he reasonably believed under the circumstances and presents a question of fact as to whether a safe retreat was available and whether the defendant subjectively knew of it. Retreat is only required where the defendant ... himself knows that he can avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force with complete safety, did the defendant subjectively know he could retreat with complete safety.“If you find ... *that+ the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a safe retreat was available and that the defendant knew of it, and you find so unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt, you should reject the self-defense claim. The law stresses that self-defense cannot be retaliatory. It must be defensive and not punitive. So you must ask yourself did the defendant know that he could avoid the use of deadly physical force by retreating safely? If so, and yet he chose to *685 pursue the use of deadly physical force, you should reject the self-defense claim.”24 (Emphasis added.)
•State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 684-85, 975 A.2d 17, 35 (2009)

Complete Safety – not if you could perceive it…if you did perceive it!
•…, by further instructing the jury to consider what avenues of retreat the defendant “could perceive,” (emphasis added) rather than directing them to consider what the defendant did perceive, the trial court, at best, further muddied the jury's understanding of the proper subjective standard and, at worst, suggested to the jury that it could reject the defendant's claim of self-defense if it found he could have perceived, but did not actually know, that he could have avoided using deadly physical force in complete safety by retreating.
•State v. Ash, 231 Conn. 484, 496, 651 A.2d 247, 252 (1994)
•Thus…The requirement is that the defendant knew of a way to avoid the fight with complete safely and did not avail himself of it knowing it was available at the time of the incident.
•In other words…stop panicking. It’s not really a factor in most case.


That's my take on the rule of retreat.

[David Armstrong]

Kinda my whole point. 2nd Amendment/gun rights supporters should provide support to Zimmerman - at this point at least?
One can be a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and oppose people doing stupid things just because they can. I'll sort of echo Tam...at this point at least we know that none of this would have happened if Zimmerman would have stayed in his vehicle.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Short answer is that in "duty to retreat" jurisdictions you generally only have to retreat in a public place if you can do so in complete safety. There's actually a lot of leeway there - think about what "complete safety" means.

To my knowledge there has never been a requirement anywhere that you announce your intent to defend yourself. Saying "Stay back or I'll shoot!" may or may not be helpful to your case depending on the circumstances but you aren't required to say anything at all.

In every case I've ever read, both for Connecticut (where I practice) and in law school (using cases from all over the USA) complete safety mean just that.

COMPLETE.

SAFETY.

Not mitigation of damages. Not deminimus damages.

Complete FARM ANIMAL FORNICATING safety.

If you cannot retreat without danger, you are weapons free at this time.

(Or, for those of us who are Battlestar Galactica fans, "The Release of Jacketed Hollow Point has been authorized...")

[TR675]

In every case I've ever read, both for Connecticut (where I practice) and in law school (using cases from all over the USA) complete safety mean just that.

I understand what you mean and am not trying to suggest something different - just the opposite. Brevity may not be my friend here - I am posting while trying to keep my billables up - my intent was to point out that "complete safety" actually gives the person claiming self-defense a lot more leeway to act than most people assume because the self-defender does not have to retreat if doing so would expose them to any danger at all.

[BaiHu]

Thanks Mitchell.
In that case, and if 'the facts' show that Martin initiated violent contact, then by law, did he have a duty to retreat when he was being followed by Zimmerman? If 'the facts' show that Zimmerman did disengage and head back to his truck, does that show that he did disengage and retreat and is therefore in a new situation when/if Martin attacks him??

[NickA]

This is shocking...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/27/new-black-panther-party-leader-arrested-for-possession-firearm-after-issuing/
I'm almost afraid to check the news these days, just waiting for a follow on incident- someone trying to collect on this fools "bounty", a disturbance at one of the many rallies, or an innocent person trampled after being caught between Al Sharpton and a TV camera.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[dbm]

One can be a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and oppose people doing stupid things just because they can. I'll sort of echo Tam...at this point at least we know that none of this would have happened if Zimmerman would have stayed in his vehicle.

And, if the evidence proves Zimmerman 's statement correct, it would not have happened either if Martin had not initiated the confrontation as Zimmerman was leaving and heading back to his vehicle.

But, I doubt Zimmerman set out to intentionally cause a problem. Seems like he was just trying to keep Martin in view until the police arrived. Until the evidence proves otherwise, Martin was the main cause for his own death.

Maybe lessons can be learned from both side here.

[David Armstrong]

And, if the evidence proves Zimmerman 's statement correct, it would not have happened either if Martin had not initiated the confrontation as Zimmerman was leaving and heading back to his vehicle.
Again, Martin would not have been able to initiate a confrontation as Zimmerman was heading back to his vehicle if Zimmerman would never have left his vehicle.


But, I doubt Zimmerman set out to intentionally cause a problem. Seems like he was just trying to keep Martin in view until the police arrived. Until the evidence proves otherwise, Martin was the main cause for his own death.
Actually, I don't think that is a legal doctrine. Zimmerman is the one who left his house, Zimmerman is the one who left his vehicle, Zimmerman did a lot of things that the evidence (what little is known to me at this time) seem to indicate that he was the main cause for most of this stuff. Again, it may have been legal and it may have been OK for 2nd Amendment purposes, that doesn't mean it was the smart thing to do.

[Shellback]

Again, Martin would not have been able to initiate a confrontation as Zimmerman was heading back to his vehicle if Zimmerman would never have left his vehicle.

Zimmerman would've never followed Martin if he never would've went to the store... You can do that game all day long.

[dookie1481]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-trayvon-martin-case-20120326,0,4845076.story


Trayvon Martin case: Martin was the aggressor, police sources say

[JodyH]

Covered all this in "PAGE 1, POST #2"

Avoidable stupidity.
May or may not be criminally stupid.

:cool:

[TGS]

In that case, and if 'the facts' show that Martin initiated violent contact, then by law, did he have a duty to retreat when he was being followed by Zimmerman?

No. Florida has codified castle doctrine.......even if Zimmerman initiated conflict (not contact, conflict), Martin would have no duty to retreat since he was lawfully in a public place to begin with. If Zimmerman walked up to Martin with his gat and said, "What you doing, foo?" then Martin would have been perfectly in the law to break his nose, take him to the ground and smash his head into the sidewalk until his brains popped out.



If 'the facts' show that Zimmerman did disengage and head back to his truck, does that show that he did disengage and retreat and is therefore in a new situation when/if Martin attacks him??

5 demerits for over played italics. Reading this makes me think you're talking like William Shattner. :)

Distinguish between contact and conflict when you talk about him disengaging. Disengage from violent conflict? As in Zimmerman walks up with his gun out and says, "Whatch'u want, foo?!" and then decides to leave Martin alone, put his gun away, and walk back to his truck? Then Martin can not go and pursue Zimmerman. Same as someone breaking into your house with a gun threatening you, you yell "Di di mao, mofo!", and the guy runs.......you're not allowed to chase him out onto the street and blast him. That's not self defense, since he's no longer threatening you.

[dbm]

Again, Martin would not have been able to initiate a confrontation as Zimmerman was heading back to his vehicle if Zimmerman would never have left his vehicle.


Actually, I don't think that is a legal doctrine. Zimmerman is the one who left his house, Zimmerman is the one who left his vehicle, Zimmerman did a lot of things that the evidence (what little is known to me at this time) seem to indicate that he was the main cause for most of this stuff. Again, it may have been legal and it may have been OK for 2nd Amendment purposes, that doesn't mean it was the smart thing to do.

1. Martin didn't have to initiate the physical confrontation period. When asked, Zimmerman said he had no problem; but, Martin chose to make one anyway. Zimmerman WAS ON THE WAY BACK TO HIS VEHICLE and leaving the scene. Again, sounds like Zimmerman was only trying to keep Martin in distant view until the LEOS arrived. Doesn't seem like he was trying to confront Martin at all. Yeah, Zimmerman may have been the cause of the face-to-face; but, he didn't cause the fight to occur - Martin did. Zimmerman was not argumentative in the face-to-face, (again) in fact, he said he did not have a problem with Martin. Martin chose to create a problem.

2. Alot of people do alot of dumb things. Given similar circumstances, many people might have done the same thing. It's impossible to hypothesize what any one person may have done in a similar situation, though.

Why was Martin in that particular residential area?

[Shellback]

Police say Martin was the aggressor. Article here. (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager)

With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered, law-enforcement authorities told the Orlando Sentinel...

In his version of events, Zimmerman had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind, the two exchanged words and then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him.

[TGS]

1. Martin didn't have to initiate the physical confrontation period. When asked, Zimmerman said he had no problem; but, Martin chose to make one anyway. Zimmerman WAS ON THE WAY BACK TO HIS VEHICLE and leaving the scene. Again, sounds like Zimmerman was only trying to keep Martin in distant view until the LEOS arrived. Doesn't seem like he was trying to confront Martin at all. Yeah, Zimmerman may have been the cause of the face-to-face; but, he didn't cause the fight to occur - Martin did.


You sound pretty sure of yourself, which means you must have evidence of the above. If you do, I'm pretty sure the Sanford gov, Florida state gov, FBI, and DOJ would greatly appreciate your contribution since you apparently know what the investigation is trying to ascertain.

Otherwise, I think you should stop posting what you think as fact. This is Pistol-forum.com, not some other forum. The membership here prides itself on objective, level-headed, supportable statements.

[dbm]

In all my posts, I'm just trying to present another (Zimmerman's) view. Actually, before I get any further into this thing, I'm going to wait for all the evidence to come in. At this point, there is much conjecture. Better not to be like those that already have Zimmerman lynched.

[dbm]

[QUOTE=TGS;62492 ... This is Pistol-forum.com, not some other forum. The membership here prides itself on objective, level-headed, supportable statements.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, from an outsider view, this isn't always immediately evident.

[Shellback]

You sound pretty sure of yourself, which means you must have evidence of the above. If you do, I'm pretty sure the Sanford gov, Florida state gov, FBI, and DOJ would greatly appreciate your contribution since you apparently know what the investigation is trying to ascertain.

Otherwise, I think you should stop posting what you think as fact. This is Pistol-forum.com, not some other forum. The membership here prides itself on objective, level-headed, supportable statements.

Read the link I posted above. What he stated jives with what the police are stating to be facts now. Martin was the aggressor and Zimmerman was defending himself against an attack.

[TGS]

Read the link I posted above. What he stated jives with what the police are stating to be facts now. Martin was the aggressor and Zimmerman was defending himself against an attack.

1) That article is not new. It's 2 days old, and stating what the Sanford PD stated. Just so happens that the Sanford PD is also under investigation, so take it with a grain of salt.

2) Quoted from the same article you linked: "There have been no reports that a witness saw the initial punch Zimmerman told police about." So, frankly, no, it doesn't jive. Any statements about pre-conflict are purely speculation and hold no weight until more evidence comes to light. Nor has the police even made any statements about that part of the incident besides there not being anything to contradict Zimmerman's claims, nor anything to support it.

[Shellback]

2) Quoted from the same article you linked: "There have been no reports that a witness saw the initial punch Zimmerman told police about." So, frankly, no, it doesn't jive. Any statements about pre-conflict are purely speculation and hold no weight until more evidence comes to light. Nor has the police even made any statements about that part of the incident besides there not being anything to contradict Zimmerman's claims, nor anything to support it.

I take the fact that he had a broken nose and had lacerations on the back of his head as pretty compelling evidence. Either way I'm really not too concerned.

I'm more interested in the fact that the Brady Bunch and every other anti-gun wingnut is using this as ammunition to further their cause.

[TGS]

I take the fact that he had a broken nose and had lacerations on the back of his head as pretty compelling evidence. Either way I'm really not too concerned.

I'm more interested in the fact that the Brady Bunch and every other anti-gun wingnut is using this as ammunition to further their cause.

His broken nose and head trauma can in no way be presented as evidence for the following statement (the statement I was addressing in my post):


1. Martin didn't have to initiate the physical confrontation period. When asked, Zimmerman said he had no problem; but, Martin chose to make one anyway. Zimmerman WAS ON THE WAY BACK TO HIS VEHICLE and leaving the scene.

I hear you about the brady bunch, but I'm not too concerned personally. There's a lot of emotions going around with no basis or even coherent reasoning for anything to happen. A very basic understanding of the lawful use of lethal force or the function of castle doctrine will squash anything the million hoodie crowd pulls out. The whole issue at hand isn't the sanity of castle doctrine...it's whether Zimmerman was justified or not. Some people are just trying to (unintelligibly) somehow spin this as a reason that castle doctrine is stupid and dangerous. Even on facebook, the breeding ground for stupidity and groundless diatribes and comebacks, I've shut up several anti-Castle Doctrine people by simply stating the function of castle doctrine and how it has no bearing on Zimmerman being justified or unjustified.